I have come to detest battlemats. I really have. And the five foot square grid, too.
I feel like it distances the players too far from the characters, but more importantly, it becomes too easy to reveal too much information to the players.
The fog of war isn't just a video game convention. It's a real thing. Information becomes a precious commodity in combat. Arguably the most precious. Drawing everything out in water pens on a battlemat and placing minis automatically and completly changes the players' relationship to the battlefield. And I can feel it yank everyone at the table out of the game every time I do it. I almost wince.
You want a good example?
Try running a mirror maze encounter with battlemats and minis. There's one in Dungeon 127. In my experience, it completely nerfs the encounter. Drawing anything or placing mini's anywhere gives away too much information, and destroys any kind of "You're in a mirror maze" effect you're trying to generate in your players' minds.
Another example I can think of is the hall directionless halls of mist from the pyramid dungeon in Desert of Desolation. I submit that that whole series of passageways are not playable with a battlemat and minis.
The news from Mr. Logue that a battlemat is basically essential to playing 4e is very disheartening to me.
I don’t use them.
The battle map takes d&d from a role-playing game to a tabletop strategy game. Also, my personal experience with some GMs, is the use of a battle map sets up a direct competition between the GM and the players, not the monsters and the characters.
Certain monsters have a CR based in part to their abilities (Wisdom) and tactics, but a GM may run all monsters, as great tacticians.
I think this is why one of the recent changes to monster write-up (reported about 4th edition somewhere) is a focus on a monsters tactics in a fight.
I love 'em. And I do my best to introduce "fog of war" by limiting what gets drawn or revealed. If an NPC is invisible, I remove the fig. If they can't see what's around the corner, I don't draw it.
I also liberally use the phrase "No, you can't do that because your character doesn't know that...". I trust my player to understand the difference between what they know and what their characters know. And generally I get help from the PCs correcting each other when someone is using metagame knowledge. We're all adults and we want to have fun.
We like tactics and we like role-playing. We like it all. I've been using battle-mats since early 2nd edition, and it helps me visualize the battle - not hinder.
So, to make a long story short - to each his own.
Greg
YES! I HATES THE BATTLEMATS! HATES THEM! FOREVER!
It's true. I don't use em either, nothing sucks the fun out of my games faster. They just don't suit my style of play at all.
I like chaos! I like bedlam! I like the "feel" of wild melee! Exploding fireballs knocking people through walls and a good hard axe blow to your shield arm sending you careening back and to your knees (All color! No need mechanics for these flavorful descriptions!).
|
Use of battlemat in Burnt Offerings so far, once. The quasit fight and that was because it was kind of a boss fight. Placing the battlemat takes time too. I use it as rarely as possible, only in complicated fights and even then it does indeed add to much metagaming. Invisibility etc, fog spells, darkness, all dimish when used on a battlemat.
And lest the five foot square grid think it got off easy in my original post:
Five feet is too much space. I like meter hexes better, if I absolutely must use a battlemat, but hex grids make it hard to draw buildings.
|
I find a lot of the rules simply become arbitrary without a battlemat, like flanking, AoOs and so on. It is certainly true that once the details are given, the player mindset immediately goes tactical - even in my PbPs, initiatives get rolled without asking for them. But I'm not that bothered - a lot of fun can be had from the tactical aspects of the game, and I feel that without a battlemat it can be difficult for a lot of those to come across. I certainly agree that it makes visualisation easier. I don't really see the problem with giving descriptions about exploding fireballs (by the way, by the description in the PHB, Fireballs actually generate very little pressure and so are unlikely to blow anyone anywhere, but I digress) and a battlement to map it out.
Contributor
|
I always use battlemats. There are lots of ways to incorporate fog of war with it. Also, I love strategy games, and I don't have time to play them seperately, so I just put peanut butter into my chocolate.
Also, I've been shafted a few times by DMs who rearranged their mental picture of the battlefield, or willfully misinterpreted my intentions. That's not counting the times when there was an honest miscommunication between player and GM as to who was where.
Most of the time the confusion that comes up from not having a grid is just as far removed from real 'fog of war' as the overly clear picture you get from having one. The grid means fewer arguments.
That said, some adventures, some campaigns, some game systems with the right GM can support gridless play. I just find the grid adds more to 3E than it detracts, especially with the number of rules that allow you to make real tactical decisions to affect combat.
YMMV of course.
It is certainly true that once the details are given, the player mindset immediately goes tactical
(emphasis mine)
This seems to be a dirty word around here... Not really sure why. One can be cinematic and tactical at the same time, I bet.
I will say that I am definitely not a cinematic DM, but that's my fault, not the battle mat's. I've got a physicist's brain*, not a screenwriter's unfortunately.
But I'm not that bothered - a lot of fun can be had from the tactical aspects of the game, and I feel that without a battlemat it can be difficult for a lot of those to come across.
Agreed.
Greg
*I keep it in a jar on the shelf. :)
I always use battlemats. There are lots of ways to incorporate fog of war with it. Also, I love strategy games, and I don't have time to play them seperately, so I just put peanut butter into my chocolate.
Also, I've been shafted a few times by DMs who rearranged their mental picture of the battlefield, or willfully misinterpreted my intentions. That's not counting the times when there was an honest miscommunication between player and GM as to who was where.
Most of the time the confusion that comes up from not having a grid is just as far removed from real 'fog of war' as the overly clear picture you get from having one. The grid means fewer arguments.
That said, some adventures, some campaigns, some game systems with the right GM can support gridless play. I just find the grid adds more to 3E than it detracts, especially with the number of rules that allow you to make real tactical decisions to affect combat.
YMMV of course.
I SHALL TURN YOU THE GRIDLESS SIDE SCRIBE!!! YOU SHALL PLAY IN MY REINDEER GAMES SOON!
:-)
|
Contributor
|
I've used them before, but in my next campaign, we'll just use an undelineated board. Distances will be measured by rulers. Fireballs will fill up actual circles.
Vector-based, not dot-matrix.
I tried this for a while. It had some benefits, but in the long run it was too much trouble. If you get it to work, post your results so I can try it again.
Oh and tactics can be wicked fun too. I just prefer the uber-cinematic usually!
Didn't want to sound like a Snooty McDramma-F+!~
I will say though that's hard to have BOTH tactical and cinematic. As soon as the mat and minis hit the table, everyone's focus goes down to table and eye contact goes the way of the dodo in exchange for number crunching and square counting. I don't even like to sit down when I'm running/playing, I like to be running around like a maniac instead!
That's me though, you all knew already that I was a maniac. No surprise there! :-)
|
|
Oh and tactics can be wicked fun too. I just prefer the uber-cinematic usually!
Didn't want to sound like a Snooty McDramma-f##&
I will say though that's hard to have BOTH tactical and cinematic. As soon as the mat and minis hit the table, everyone's focus goes down to table and eye contact goes the way of the dodo in exchange for number crunching and square counting. I don't even like to sit down when I'm running/playing, I like to be running around like a maniac instead!
That's me though, you all knew already that I was a maniac. No surprise there! :-)
I think that is right. But I'm basically not that bothered, as I said before - being cinematic is all well and good, but crunching the tactical options makes the PCs think hard. It kind of easy to say to the DM, "I move to flank the enemy, dodging the falling arrows," or some, hopefully more dramatic suggestion, without bothering to see if there is a decent path or even if you have the movement to get there. But you are an actor and I am an accountant.
I'm plenty fond of tactics myself. I used to play tacitcal games like Panzer Leader all the time, and I kind of miss it.
Funny thing. When I started my last post, yours wasn't up yet. but I almost said "Nick Logue is an example of the kind of DM I'm happy to play with no mat with."I SHALL TURN YOU THE GRIDLESS SIDE SCRIBE!!! YOU SHALL PLAY IN MY REINDEER GAMES SOON!
:-)
Ha! Awesome! So great am I with the dark side that you turn without me even posting yet! ;-)
It really depends if I use battle maps or printed maps or not. In big, complex fight situations, these things can save the DM (me) a lot of trouble and miscommunications. Sometimes, the same can be achieved with a quick sketch on a piece of scrap paper. But at times, it is just not worth the bother. Last time, I had a big ship-to-ship fight against pirates - without maps, it would have been a PITA to manage this IMO. But if there is a normal melee running, it is just not needed.
Stefan
I'm drawn between love and hate. On one hand, they are useful for larger battles (and even mendatory for 3e rules because of flanking, sneak attacking, AoO and all other "tactical" things).
On the other hand, they really stop the flow of the game. Every time I put a battlemap on my table, we seem to play another game altogether. No one describes his charcater's actions actions in roleplaying terms anymore and things like "i swing my sword in a wide arc leaning into the blow for extra force" becomes a "i make a power attack +2. ac 19. hit. 15 points of damage."
So, during the last couple of game sessions i have decided to reduce the use of battlemaps. When there is only one or two enemies i don't use them anymore, replacing them with a more free-form and narrative combat, winking for flanking, sneak attack, eyeballing distance as in "good old times". Fun goes first here and usually there are no discussions about what someone can do, if a target is in range or whatever. If a player says "Amarylis moves to the orc, so she can flank with Fulgar". Its ok for me and she can do this. You have to ignore a lot of AoO with this approach (which are mostly reduced to two situations: closing in with an enemy with reach and moving out of close combat and doing somewhat else than moving).
Battle grid is integral to me. I've played with and without them, and my experiences with them have been uniformly better. With them, I have a spatial sense of where our characters are, and what they're doing; without them, the whole thing becomes kind of abstracted. One of the most important uses of the battle grid isn't tactical; it's the quintessential visual aid.
Having said that, they do improve the tactical experience dramatically, as well. Some of the most rewarding combat victories come from clever use of terrain features and general positioning; without a battle grid, I've found (in more than one group) that the combat devolves into a sort of Final Fantasy "take turns attacking a target of your choice". Can I position myself to have line of sight to that guy without him having line of effect to charge me? With a battle grid, I can answer that question. Without a battle grid, the answer is likely "Line of sight? What's that?"
I will admit that going without the battlemat requires the DM to be able to convey the sense of place and terrain properly, otherwise it doesn't work. I've seen it done very well, and I've seen it done very badly. I think I pull it off pretty well, though I'm always trying to improve on that score.
|
|
Without the battlemat everybody just gets confused, the rogue complains about never getting to use his flanking, nobody knows if they're firing into melee, etc.
basically - my players are too paranoid that they'll not fully understand my description snd wander into a killzone. The battlemat is their tactical safety-net.
I know what people mean about int2 monsters using advanced tactics though...
With adnd battles were much more flavoursome but given a safety-net my players leap at it, plus some people feel much love for the minis.
I always use battlemats. There are lots of ways to incorporate fog of war with it. Also, I love strategy games, and I don't have time to play them seperately, so I just put peanut butter into my chocolate.
Also, I've been shafted a few times by DMs who rearranged their mental picture of the battlefield, or willfully misinterpreted my intentions. That's not counting the times when there was an honest miscommunication between player and GM as to who was where.
Most of the time the confusion that comes up from not having a grid is just as far removed from real 'fog of war' as the overly clear picture you get from having one. The grid means fewer arguments.
That said, some adventures, some campaigns, some game systems with the right GM can support gridless play. I just find the grid adds more to 3E than it detracts, especially with the number of rules that allow you to make real tactical decisions to affect combat.
YMMV of course.
I'm with you here. Removing the battlemat does not make things less wonky - it just changes the flavour of wonky from to much information too to little information. It does make combat faster to remove the battle mat but the present version of D&D has a great tactical combat system. A tad slow and all but really pretty nice.
I think this is really something of a matter of taste, DM strengths and the level of 'rules lawyering' one might find among the players.
I find the battlematt increases how cinematic my fights often are because I can liberally throw interesting terrain onto the grid and then work out in advance how that terrain might work in combat, balance check DCs that sort of thing. I find it much easier to create exciting fast paced and mobile fights if there is some kind of a base line to work from. If the players have to make a running leap to land on the ship before it pulls out of the harbour you can decide ahead of time how far the ship moves away from the dock each round (you did remember to put points into the jump skill right?).
I actually started doing more of these highly cinematic fights fairly recently after realizing that the standard fights did not seem quite as exciting as they used too. One of the things that I think was causing this is the fact that my players and myself have become maybe too comfortable with doors and hallways and corners. Initially, when we started playing 3rd edition this was all pretty much new and it seemed so hard to remember cover and line of sight. Soon we got a grasp of how this worked and we hit a kind of 'sweet spot' were it was new and exciting enough to engage our interest and yet not so new that we were mostly just confused. However that point has long past and 'tactics' were getting kind of stale. A glance told my players everything they needed to know so I thought it was time to shake things up a little more and introduce more terrain effects while planning battles that are meant to be more mobile with different elevation levels, shifting terrain, chase scenes, time limits etc.
I suppose more free form DMs work better at describing the excitement if the matt is not pretty much telling them whats happening but that never worked all that well for me, combat in 1st and 2nd edition seemed to come down to the players mostly staying still and all concentrating on a single enemy until it died then moving on to the next enemy.
Its also very useful if you and your players ever find yourselves in arguments over whether or not something is possible or not. If the battle matt saves you from having two of those arguments a year your probably ahead despite the setup time.
I've gotta' say I'm fat and square on the side of Nick and the OP. I play for story. We've tried the battlemap-module thing a couple of times (mostly just as a quick "something different" between games, or when I've gone over as a guest to play with a different group). It's just never as vivid. Roleplaying grinds to a halt, visual description grinds to a halt, and I find myself disconnecting my imagination. The little plastic figure becomes my character. It really does distract a lot more than it helps.
I tend to be okay with making some of the more nitty-gritty "tactical" stuff a bit more subjective. Losing a bit of the wargaminess doesn't bother me a bit. Frankly a lot of the combat section of the PHB just doesn't do it for me. I don't agree with their premises a lot of the time, or sometimes when I do it just feels like more mechanics than I want or care to devote to memory. Fast and loose is the way for me.
So yeah, as much as I understand that there's a load of folks who prefer that kind of game, I'm all for lining the little five-foot square battlemats up against the wall. They stink! Vive la revolution!
Something I pondered (on a day dark and dreary) was the fact that how I learned to play D&D influences a lot of my likes & dislikes today. For example, when I was learning to play, there was a distinct lack of minis, props and battlemaps, as we were stuck on a military base with nary a hobby store in sight, nor for miles around. Narrative and description won the day, simply because those things were more readily available (and didn't cost a fortune). It never occured to me to use maps as anything other than a prop and aid to tell the story until much later.
Something I pondered (on a day dark and dreary) was the fact that how I learned to play D&D influences a lot of my likes & dislikes today. For example, when I was learning to play, there was a distinct lack of minis, props and battlemaps, as we were stuck on a military base with nary a hobby store in sight, nor for miles around. Narrative and description won the day, simply because those things were more readily available (and didn't cost a fortune). It never occured to me to use maps as anything other than a prop and aid to tell the story until much later.
Agreed. I do however find that the battlemat reduces my own "fog of war" incredibly. I also find that if the DM improvs a lot of descriptions and encourages the players, they will too. Even on a mat.
I like battlemats. They reduce confusion (Where am I? I thought I attacked the other goblin! Why did the dwarf get to charge and I can't? Who's flanking again?), and help the players get a feel for where they are.
However, minis are EXPENSIVE, and drawing maps has huge player knowledge/character knowledge issues. This is why I use MapTool and a projector. Not only is it cheap as free (besides my time, and well, as a DM you have to prep anyway), it has FoW and lighting settings that allow me to hide what the PCs can't see.
Perhaps the problem is I'm a poor DM. I suck at describing things, and can't give NPCs persoanlity worth squat if I have to do it in real time. The more of the work I can shift to prep time, the better it is.
Jeremy MacDonald has said just about everything I would say for me. Thanks, Jeremy!
Lilith, my experience differs from yours. I, too, learned to play D&D without miniatures or a battlemat, but after a few years my brother and I built our own battlemat (this was back before you could just buy one) with a wooden frame, plastic overlay, and grease pens. And I've never looked back. Not to disparage those who prefer matless games, but I have no desire to play D&D without one.
YES! I HATES THE BATTLEMATS! HATES THEM! FOREVER!
(All color! No need mechanics for these flavorful descriptions!).
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP and Mr. Logue's desire for fewer mechanics. While I too have had trouble with DMs and arbitrary rules, those experiences have led me to give players a lot of latitude (the moment something sounds like a great movie-scene, I let the player(s) try it--and the times they fail are as awesome as the times they succeed...like the time a player climbed to the top of a lightning rail in a siberys shard storm and took a shard to the head, or the numerous times PCs have been lit on fire one way or another).
I'm concerned about the growing "rules" around terrain and such...I like a lot of the premises in Iron Heroes or the Book of Iron Might, but I don't need rules to adjudicate the stunts, just common sense and a will to have the PCs kick ass (and my villains, too!)
The fog of war isn't just a video game convention. It's a real thing. Information becomes a precious commodity in combat. Arguably the most precious. Drawing everything out in water pens on a battlemat and placing minis automatically and completly changes the players' relationship to the battlefield. And I can feel it yank everyone at the table out of the game every time I do it. I almost wince.
Digital battlemats are the way of the future.
I like chaos! I like bedlam! I like the "feel" of wild melee! Exploding fireballs knocking people through walls and a good hard axe blow to your shield arm sending you careening back and to your knees .
~shakes my head~ Nick, Nick, Nick! There is no need to describe in such detail the last fight that you and your wife had. (and we really know who won that fight, and that person's name did NOT start with a N.)
~grins~
also count me in for hate of battle mat. i like war games too but dnd shouldnt be one we never use mats or manys if things get to confusing i draw a quick rough mape to help never been an issue... choas is your friend and also makes a mean cookie...
Also, I've been shafted a few times by DMs who rearranged their mental picture of the battlefield, or willfully misinterpreted my intentions. That's not counting the times when there was an honest miscommunication between player and GM as to who was where.
And that is why I usually call for a physical representation.
I fully understand the desire to run matless. And as others have said, some GMs can swing it, and swing it well.
Too many don't though.
And if you will reread my first statement, I only need a physical representation. I don't need full battle mat, or tactical movement. It is still possible to say "I move in to flank <monster A> with <character C>."
I use battlemats and miniatures for all my games. Why? Because it eliminates certain 'whine' effects that your players throw at you when their imagination does not conform with yours.
Does this turn my games tactical? Yes, it does. But I can simply fix that by favoring the players that go for the whole cinematic thing. My other players know by now that if they go; "I charge the orc." and move their miniature that it won't net them anything but what they just declared. Give me something cool to work with, and you might just find yourself doing those extra five points of damage to kill the BBEG just because you made a leap of faith off a cliff when he was flying past.
But to finish my 2 copper here,
You (old) people whine too much. Live and let live.
Digital battlemats are the way of the future.
Unfortunately, until they can provide Mac support (why is it always Windows?!?!?), and they can convince my wife this is a beneficial way of spending our money, this will be "way" in the future for me.
Greg
Unfortunately, until they can provide Mac support (why is it always Windows?!?!?), and they can convince my wife this is a beneficial way of spending our money, this will be "way" in the future for me.Greg
MapTool is free (as in beer), and runs on the Java Virtual Machine, so I think it'll run on a mac with Java installed, but I'll go check.
Alright. I checked. MapTool will run on a Mac. You may have to fiddle with the permissions on the startup file, but it'll definitely run. If you have any trouble, the developers are very active on their forums and will be happy to help you.
Linky->RPTools
(Yay Java and innate multiplatform support.)
I also like physical representation on certain combats (mainly multiple opponents of 5+). But I find battle mats to be ... constricting.
"No, um, you can't stand there because your on the line there not really on one full square."
Also try and describe a packed area (concert, Tokyo train, etc) with minis and a mat. I sure wish that I got a 5' square of space where ever I went. (Then again maybe if I started carrying a sword and taking AoO on people that came into my space I would.)
Now and then, mats can be fun but they don't help you with a bad DM.
Also, I've been shafted a few times by DMs who rearranged their mental picture of the battlefield, or willfully misinterpreted my intentions. That's not counting the times when there was an honest miscommunication between player and GM as to who was where.
Plus battle mats take up to much table space (I find you need an extra table ... or just a really really big one).
Then there is the issue of "collectable minis" (I don't paint my own minis). If I could buy them on demand (at a none inflated price for being "collectable") I would buy every mini of every monster I would possible run. But untill then, they can suck an egg.
All in all erasers, dice, glass decorative beads ($1.99 @ Dollar store, $5.99 @ game store as "markers") and simple diagram drawings or more detailed handout maps are enough for me. Don't need them often but they do help sometimes.
Oh and as for AoO ... I hate those. Want to stop people from being cinimatic? Use AoO.
I also like physical representation on certain combats (mainly multiple opponents of 5+). But I find battle mats to be ... constricting.
"No, um, you can't stand there because your on the line there not really on one full square."
Remember the "squeezing" rule for those situations... 2x move to enter squares less than the size of the character.
Also try and describe a packed area (concert, Tokyo train, etc) with minis and a mat. I sure wish that I got a 5' square of space where ever I went. (Then again maybe if I started carrying a sword and taking AoO on people that came into my space I woulde.)
Well, outside of combat, you can have multiple people in a 5' square. But the way I see it, the 5' per person is actually quite "cinematic" and not "verisimilistic". Imagine someone with a sword. Now imagine someone with a sword and swinging it around. That to me, is where the 5' per person comes from. You need space around you to enter combat. Just look at fencers. They take up a lot of space. In my mind, the 5' space is concession to cinematic play, not a restriction of it.
Greg
Then there is the issue of "collectable minis" (I don't paint my own minis). If I could buy them on demand (at a none inflated price for being "collectable") I would buy every mini of every monster I would possible run. But untill then, they can suck an egg.All in all erasers, dice, glass decorative beads ($1.99 @ Dollar store, $5.99 @ game store as "markers") and simple diagram drawings or more detailed handout maps are enough for me. Don't need them often but they do help sometimes.
Once again, digital battlemats to the rescue (and none of this 'changing for digital minis' WotC stuff.) I can make as many tokens, with whatver art, as I like or need, almost on demand, for free.
Alright. I checked. MapTool will run on a Mac. You may have to fiddle with the permissions on the startup file, but it'll definitely run. If you have any trouble, the developers are very active on their forums and will be happy to help you.
Linky->RPTools(Yay Java and innate multiplatform support.)
Cool, that solves problem 1. It creates problem 1.5, in that I have a 7-year-old computer that runs Java applets like molasses, but that's another issue.
Problem 2 won't be solved anytime soon. (A high-priced video projector is way, way, way, way down the list "things we need to spend money on", not the least of which is a snow blower - damn La Nina...)
Greg
Then there is the issue of "collectable minis" (I don't paint my own minis). If I could buy them on demand (at a none inflated price for being "collectable") I would buy every mini of every monster I would possible run. But untill then, they can suck an egg.
Ever on the lookout to make the fine folks at Paizo a buck!
Seriously their a la cart way to buy minis is the only way to buy minis. Sure if you want Drizzt or a big ol' dragon it's like $30 but there are a ton of minis you can get for a buck! Try getting that from Games Workshop! I don't hardly use minis and I bought myself a big shoebox full just because they're cool looking and nicely priced!
And I don't even ever use a battlemap.
I also like physical representation on certain combats (mainly multiple opponents of 5+). But I find battle mats to be ... constricting.
"No, um, you can't stand there because your on the line there not really on one full square."
That's why I treat the squares as guidelines and not "spaces". (At my table the diagonal length of a square will never be the same as its orthogonal length.)
I would say it depends on the type of situation. Battlemaps are great for simple fights like your dungeon exploring. For more complex fights like figths in a crowd or urban environments, they become an hinderance.
On the whole, I am pro battlemaps because it removes a lot of the arguments about what PCs can do or can't do. It also add a tactical element to the game I like (hold the door, hold the higher ground). Personally, I do not count distances in squares. That slows down the game a lot. Instead, players move as they wish and I judge how long it takes to go from point A to point B.
Last saturday we were playing D&D and a combat against a powerful archmage arose. It was a fast, furious, very well roleplayed combat (full of tension and hysteria) and a great experience for everyone. At the end of it one of my players suddenly said "ey! we totally forgot the minis!!" He was right. The fight was unexpected and I didn't bother to get the mat and minis ready. We somehow turned our 2nd Edition chips on again and played the whole encounter without any kind of visual aid.
Boy, it was simply great.
daedel, el azote.
I've tried both.
Now I am a Battlemap user.
I draw the things I'm talking about as I draw. And I mean everything, I draw monsters, maps, buildings, write names.... I can draw, so I do.
I don't think it's the battlemap that slows things down, I think that if the DM knows the encounter really well, is able to draw quickly and talk at the same time, that the map is a great asset and gives the players a better idea of what is happening than description alone AND more control of how they interact with the environment.
A better idea of what is happening for the same reason that a module includes maps for the use of the DM. DMs like looking at the maps and they are a more effective way of establishing position and paths of movement. For the same reasons many players like maps, too. It allows players to do things like establish lines of fire, block off areas and otherwise behave tactically in a way that is not possible without maps. Yes a DM can sustain tactical combat without the map but it places more power in the hands of the DM. I find that when I am playing with a no battlemap DM that they tend to control things more than non-battlemap DMs, and I like to keep as much control in my hands as I can when I play. No offense to anyone, but both of my non-battlemap DMs have been more prone to assumption and have often narrated things into the combat that I would have avoided if I had known more situational detail. They were great storytellers and their games were fun but if I had my say we would have had minis.
When I look at the map as a player I am better able to narrate what I will do without interruption, whereas when I have no map I must inevitably ask the DM if I can do something--I must elicit some details that could have been put on the map.
IMO, it all boils down to styles, personalities, DM skills and resources, and rapport between players and DM. Those DMs who say it interrupts their storytelling are certainly giving valid testimonials but their testimonials certainly don't apply to me, nor do they apply to my best friend, and we are both hardcore battlemap/minis/wet-erase dudes who own all kinds of cool figures and terrain.
I say again in no uncertain terms that I have no problem telling my story without a hitch as I toss some stuff on the table and I know my players love narrating what is happening as they move their pieces without asking me for details. So if you are a non-battlemap DM but you own a map, just send it to me, ok? I'll take the minis, too.
Thanks!
And like some of you, yes, sometimes battles are managed without the map, but that has more to do with the nature of the combat than anything else.
I have to agree with Kruelaid on the battlemats issue. I've played both ways for a number of years, with both D&D and Top Secret/S.I. The usage of mats and miniatures does slow down play for me, but I find it to be more than worth it. Would I go back to no mats? No