Depends, really.
On the one end, if you're just nuking a cluster of lowly goblins with one fireball, or shivving one guard, or having a plain fullattackfullattackfullattack sword duel, it doesn't really matter. May as well freeform. On the other end, if you have a big, complex battle that's supposed to be a major tactical event, it really helps to be able to keep track of who's where and in what state, even if you're just dumping out a bag of M&Ms to represent a zombie horde and tossing in a few bigger monsters and NPCs.
Generally, I do freeform for the small, unimportant stuff, and tactical for the big, major stuff.
Contributor
|
Which do you prefer? I have found benefits to running combat both ways.
I used to enjoy free form combat, but now I use battle maps always and would not like to go back.
Of course, that's for D&D. For other games, notably CoC, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with free form or, when necessary, a simple sketch on the tabletop.
when i played ad&d, i was free form. never used minitures. had several arguments about where the characters were, where the monsters were, etc. i would draw out a map on 1/4 inch graph paper and go from there. 3.5 position is so important, i dont think you could play it without a 1 inch grid and markers of some sort.
if you are wondering whether or not to use a battle grid, i say yes, it only enhances the game, it keeps the arguments down to a minimum, example: i wam flanking, and have sneak attack. when the character was attacking a monster 30 feet away. tackticle positioning is too important in modern dungeons and dragons.
Depends, really.
On the one end, if you're just nuking a cluster of lowly goblins with one fireball, or shivving one guard, or having a plain fullattackfullattackfullattack sword duel, it doesn't really matter. May as well freeform. On the other end, if you have a big, complex battle that's supposed to be a major tactical event, it really helps to be able to keep track of who's where and in what state, even if you're just dumping out a bag of M&Ms to represent a zombie horde and tossing in a few bigger monsters and NPCs.
Generally, I do freeform for the small, unimportant stuff, and tactical for the big, major stuff.
Exactly. Sometimes you don't need everything laid out, othertimes it's critical to the outcome. When in doubt I'll lay it out; sometimes just to keep PCs on their toes. Don't want them slacking thinking they know if it's important or not. Suspense is good :)
I had fallen into the 3.x trap of "battle maps for everything" until I saw them creeping out to corrupt other games we were playing, and I played a session of 2e and remembered how we only used battle maps for the most complex of combats and handled the rest narratively. Now I'm backing off using them so much. It really slows down the game and can limit creativity and hurt simulation, especially when you don't have appropriate minis or terrain. And it seems to cause GMs (and players) to lean on it as a crutch rather than exercise their description skills. More and more I see GMs lay out a tactical map and just start people in on initiative without bothering to describe anything at all, except maybe "the green goblin minis are zombies this time." Arrrrrgh.
Last session I ran a big complicated combat just using a quick room sketch on a whiteboard and it worked fine and fast. I am generous enough with the rules that people looking for flanking etc, can set it up without having to incur the time overhead of large tactical maps.
|
What choice do we have? 3e/4e are like The Transformers (kind of - and the cool 1980's one not the sucky 21st century take on them). "Boardgames in diguise..."
I'm a piece of paper scribble the rough layout and discribe sort of DM.
This does cause some issues, like when I ran a 4e game it just plain failed due to many "powers" having shifts and slides and other things that require 100% a battlemat. The current pathfinder game I'm running has people not choosing some feats as they don't work very well in a free form battle.
S.
|
|
My problem with using battle maps is that they suck for a battle in three dimensions. During my game last week we had a battle where the PCs were attacked by a group of goblins standing in the rafters of a partially flooded grist mill. the PCs entered on the floor below them. In this situation it was impossible to show the battle the way it needed to be seen and so I ended up freeforming it. Battles against flying creatures have given me similar fits when using a battle map.
My problem with using battle maps is that they suck for a battle in three dimensions. During my game last week we had a battle where the PCs were attacked by a group of goblins standing in the rafters of a partially flooded grist mill. the PCs entered on the floor below them. In this situation it was impossible to show the battle the way it needed to be seen and so I ended up freeforming it. Battles against flying creatures have given me similar fits when using a battle map.
Have you tried height indicators? At first, I thought they were INCREDIBLY STUPID, but when a flying battle broke out once, I discovered they were PERFECT, especially when it was wizards fighting the dragon and the rest of the party were assaulting it from an elevated platform. The only problem is that you need several of them in order for it to truly work, but it did provide the three dimensional feel after the kinks were worked out.
My battle map was always a bunch of Legos. 3-D was easy for me.
I use maps/3D terrain as much as possible, but I think that stems from being an avid war gamer for a long period of time; it's not a big deal for me to design and construct 3D tiles or a scale battle map.
I don't map everything, but a good 80%, I would say. It in no way diminishes the role play or my requirements for descriptions -- just because you can see the general shape of the room doesn't mean you don't have to check for traps and/or ask for a description before entering (unless you enjoy being killed).
3D terrain and scale maps (from Campaign Cartographer or similar) are both expensive (sorta) and time consuming (VERY) to design, but in no way does this replace narrative description and role play for the games I run.
I never once used miniatures in fifteen years of playing in 2E and 3E, either DMing or as a PC. When larger and more complex battles took place, we just used pieces of paper and drew the positions of characters and the enemy roughly, and basically freestyled it (sometimes using scrap paper to mark positions very roughly, but this was fairly rare). The mantra of the gaming group seemed to be that we had turned up to use our imaginations and roleplay. If we wanted to play Hero Quest, we'd have just gone and played that instead.
In 4E suddenly switching to the battle map mid-stride I found really broke the flow of the game as everyone paused, got out their miniatures, spread maps over the surface of the table and so on, but unlike 3E where the miniatures and battle maps are pretty much optional it seemed difficult to run 4E battles without using them, contributing to my lack of interest in that game.
Not to say that I don't see the value of visual aids, particularly in running large engagements, but in my case I simply don't use them. At best, a very roughly-scribbled scenery map does the job just as well.