D&D 5E Why I love 5E - the renewal of Theater of Mind

[Tony Vargas]

Good luck doing a running battle over rooftops with a grid. Or aerial combat. Or when you split the party. It has a number of restrictions compared to ToTM. I can think of quite a few times that I shelved a battle idea because it was going to be too complex for a grid. That's just what happens when you have to map out every 5' square.

You only have to map out the 5' squares that matter. In a running battle, for instance, terrain can 'move,' much like scrolling on a video game - or, if there's a vehicle involved, it's the part that's mapped. It's still handy to track relative movement and positioning.

In general, though, using a grid is a convenience, it's easier than using a plain play surface and measuring everything, which is easier that tracking lots of relative positions in your head. TotM is also a matter of what's convenient - if you have no play surface, or if, in game, there is no defined area where things are happening, or relative positioning and the like just isn't important.

When a group does lean towards one or the other, they'll favor different sorts of encounters an tactics. Mostly-TotM campaign will tend towards small (few enemies) encounters in simple environments that lend themselves to only a couple of meaningful positions (next to the Big Bad, far away from the big Bad; holding the doorway, in the room, in the corridor; holding onto the dragon; flying after the dragon, on the parapet; etc...). A campaign that tends to use a play surface will tend to have larger battles with more enemies and more detailed terrain - but to limit itself to areas that fit on the surface one way or another.

None of that has much bearing on whether the game 'supports' one style or another, though. A game that gives out definite distances, ranges, areas, speeds, and positioning rules - whether it does it in scale inches, in-world feet, 5' squares or 2m hexes - works better with a play surface, and needs to be ballparked, ignored, or otherwise adapted to TotM. A game that uses more abstract concepts of areas/position/movement facilitates TotM, but can be adapted to a little more precision using a surface, you just have to add to it or improvise a bit on the details.
5e, like all editions of D&D, is the former sort of game.
Frankly, I think that's a good decision, because it's easier to ballpark and ignore detail when necessary, than to manufacture more detail and the rules to handle it on the fly.

 

[The Human Target]

Good luck doing a running battle over rooftops with a grid. Or aerial combat. Or when you split the party. It has a number of restrictions compared to ToTM. I can think of quite a few times in 4e that I shelved a battle idea because it was going to be too complex for a grid. That's just what happens when you have to map out every 5' square.

I have done those.

I guess designing grid play isnt your strong suit then.

I myself am terrible at NPC voices.

 

[Psikerlord#]

You only have to map out the 5' squares that matter. In a running battle, for instance, terrain can 'move,' much like scrolling on a video game - or, if there's a vehicle involved, it's the part that's mapped. It's still handy to track relative movement and positioning.

In general, though, using a grid is a convenience, it's easier than using a plain play surface and measuring everything, which is easier that tracking lots of relative positions in your head. TotM is also a matter of what's convenient - if you have no play surface, or if, in game, there is no defined area where things are happening, or relative positioning and the like just isn't important.

When a group does lean towards one or the other, they'll favor different sorts of encounters an tactics. Mostly-TotM campaign will tend towards small (few enemies) encounters in simple environments that lend themselves to only a couple of meaningful positions (next to the Big Bad, far away from the big Bad; holding the doorway, in the room, in the corridor; holding onto the dragon; flying after the dragon, on the parapet; etc...). A campaign that tends to use a play surface will tend to have larger battles with more enemies and more detailed terrain - but to limit itself to areas that fit on the surface one way or another.

None of that has much bearing on whether the game 'supports' one style or another, though. A game that gives out definite distances, ranges, areas, speeds, and positioning rules - whether it does it in scale inches, in-world feet, 5' squares or 2m hexes - works better with a play surface, and needs to be ballparked, ignored, or otherwise adapted to TotM. A game that uses more abstract concepts of areas/position/movement facilitates TotM, but can be adapted to a little more position using a surface, you just have to add to it or improvise a bit on the details.
5e, like all editions of D&D, is the former sort of game.

I guess I've played a fair bit of 13th Age, and treat 5e in a similar way, but thinking in rough 30' increments (or whatever the movement rates involved).

 

[Sunseeker]

I have done those.

I guess designing grid play isnt your strong suit then.

I myself am terrible at NPC voices.

It's not particularly hard, you just need to be reasonably prepared. Besides there's plenty of room to compromise and utilize a basic image on a grid and combine that with some ToTM effects in order to achieve both a useful physical visualization that is enhanced by everyone's imagination.

 

[The Human Target]

Empty air and average fantasy rooftops might be the easiest things to grid.

 

[pemerton]

I've played 2e and 5e Totm, and 3e and 4e required grids (in my view, or at least that's how we played). I have fun with both. But... I greatly prefer TotM. It is just infinitely flexible. Any kind of fight can break out anywhere anytime and it is easy to resolve. PCs want a one session surprise side trek - no worries! Off they go. Woot! I love it.

Not needing mini's or mats is very liberating. It is also consistent with the primary advantage TRPGs have over computer games: that players can try anything anytime, and the DM can respond in kind.

Anyone can easily do that with grids.

<snip>

TotM and grid have differences, but freedom isn't one of them.

I've never found the "Well, you can play this way, (but 99% of the way it's actually played is with grid maps and minis)" to be a very compelling or strong counter argument.

I agree with The Human Target, and don't really understand Sacrosanct's reply.

The implication of Psikerlord's post was that using grids and minis/tokens prevents "surprise side treks" or "any kind of fight breaking out anywhere anytime". In other words, that using grids and minis/tokens leads to railroading.

That hasn't been my own experience. You just draw up a map! (In my case I use photocopies of a grid rather than an erase mat, but the principle is the same.)

 

[pemerton]

I call that "why bother having a DM" and "what happened to the storytelling element?"

This was covered pretty well by [MENTION=6780946]hachface[/MENTION]: the GM is authoring backstory, making decisions for NPCs/monsters, and adjudicating the fiction.

I'd add - I'm not sure why it's more storytelling when the GM does it ("Can I fireball the tower?" "Yes!") than when the player does it ("I fireball the tower!").

 

[pemerton]

Good luck doing a running battle over rooftops with a grid. Or aerial combat. Or when you split the party. It has a number of restrictions compared to ToTM. I can think of quite a few times in 4e that I shelved a battle idea because it was going to be too complex for a grid. That's just what happens when you have to map out every 5' square.

I haven't done roof tops, but I've done a running battle along a canal in 4e - I kept track of relative distances.

When the players attacked cultists in a town square I can't remember if we had a literal grid or not - I think we did for at least some of it, because I have memories of NPC tokens being in the AoE of the wizard's colour spray - but again we tracked relative positions, and when the wizard teleported up into an overlooking building we handled it fine.

I've done plenty of aerial battles - I just stick a die under a token to record relative height, and the 4e square-counting conventions make it very easy to figure movement and ranges.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd add - I'm not sure why it's more storytelling when the GM does it ("Can I fireball the tower?" "Yes!") than when the player does it ("I fireball the tower!").

I'm not sure either, but understandably it depends on the expectations of the players and the style of the DM. Some DMs act like a glue, melding the pieces of the story the players create into a unified narrative instead of a disjointed one. Some DMs create the narrative and players take actions within it.

 

[aramis erak]

In TotM, 25 feet and 20 feet are good measures of granular speed. So, how fast is this guy getting away? Slightly faster than you, since he has a speed of 25ft and you have a speed of 20ft. Yeah, you could use "Slowest, slower, slow, average, fast, faster, fastest" but now you've lost the people that do want to use grids, and you'll have to make up speeds for them anyway on top of the TotM approach. 5E had to cater to all eras of players. Giving rounded speeds and areas of effect rather than grids was their way of doing so.

It's worth noting that a large subset of players dislike the FFG Star Wars inexact descriptions of distance.

Of the 20 different players who have bellied up to the table in FFG Star Wars sessions, 12 have complained about the lack of ability to put minis on the table. The other 8, I adapted a set of movement rules and dropped the narrative-only movement mechanics. (To wit: manuever = ≤10m moved. Eng. ≤2m, Short ≤10m, medium ≤20m, long ≤100m, extreme ≤500m. Vehicles 1 Movement unit (MU) per point of speed as free action; actually changing course up to 90° is a maneuver as is increasing or decreasing speed. Close ≤2MU, short 4MU, Medium 8 MU, long 16 MU, extreme 32 MU.)

Having the exact distances, even without grid rules, allows those who want to use maps and minis to be able to do so. It's easier to ignore those than to add them.

5E's grid rules are pretty simple, and the lack of multiple AC's (Touch, rear, flatfooted) also helps.