We Don't Need Maps Where We're Going!

[Lyrax]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

I don't remotely see how this saves time or has advantages over the map just being drawn.

Then I suspect you haven't played with players who count out their moves on the mapboard, checking out multiple alternate approaches to avoid AoOs, and jockeying for position with other players. It's in the player actions where I find a lot of time is spent on a mapboard. It's often faster and easier for the player to say that they want to close to combat with a particular opponent, have me give them a description of certain options they're facing, and then have them decide on the approach they want to take.

In the games I've been playing recently, the two most time-consuming parts of the game are:

1) The DM drawing out the map.
2) Players looking at the map and deciding what they want to do, where they want to move, and how they want to position themselves.

Mapless combat can go much faster, if everyone's paying attention and the DM describes the scene well enough.

[Sir_Wulf]

Cartigan wrote:

If the players want to take full advantage of your character, you are going to spend the exact same amount of time or more answering questions to that effect.

My experience has been very different from what you cite. I find that fights without a battlemat take about half the time as fights with one. Moving people along faster helps keep the players "in the game", so they each act faster. The increased pace causes players to pay closer attention, so they take their turns more quickly.

[Stefan Hill]

hogarth wrote:

In the "boss" fights, you let the players do whatever they want, except if it's something that would cause a lot of trouble for your "boss". Flank the "boss"? Sorry, his guards are in the way. Tumble past a dozen guards? Make a DC 57 Tumble check. Etc.

This would be a case where the DM would have to make a call. A 'good' DM makes such calls not based on protecting 'their' boss - that is NOT the job of the DM. The job is to play the boss and guards as they best think the boss and guards would act. Rules like tumbling, AoO, charging, and any other movement related ability are going to be subject to "DM interpretation & common sense" without a Mat as you point out. Again, in a group with a good DM and good players this is rarely an issue.

In the case you present I would decide the motivation of the gurds, perhaps they want their boss dead? If they are actually interesting in protecting the boss then how would they go about that? So two guards stand in front of their boss, a PC wants to engage the boss ignoring the guards. How are they going to do that (a) go through the guards (brut force), (b) tumble, (c) something off the cuff? Once they tell me, then I as DM can decide what roll seems appropriate. (a) & (b) are no problem - just follow the rules. In the case of (b) I say described originally the guards as about 3' apart, the PC is an elf, heaps of room for a thin elf a tumble WITHOUT being classed in going through the enemy square so [DC = CMD +2]. If the PC was a 6' 6" human then it would have been [DC = CMD +5 +2] - there is noway a big chap like that could fit in a 3' gap!

Using a grid this would have been, using RAW, all or nothing - either there was a 5' gap between the guards or 0' gap between the guards. By not having a map I as DM was able to inject a non-rule common sense difference between an thin elf and a stocky human. That little bit of "realism" is what I enjoy about RP games compared with a true board-game.

This was just example of how I would DM such a scene NOT an attempt to convince anyone that Mats are wrong.

S.

[Sir_Wulf]

Stefan Hill wrote:

This was just example of how I would DM such a scene NOT an attempt to convince anyone that Mats are wrong.

I knew a guy once whose mat was just WRONG. It whispered to him in the night, trying to get him to use dry-erase markers on it. I suspect it wanted to free the Old Ones from their imprisonment deep beneath the earth and between the stars. It was a mat of WRONGNESS. We were forced to hide it in the garage before the alien cultists could find it.

There's a reason I don't use battlemats in Call of Cthulhu...

[Lilith]

I learned to play D&D without a battle map or minis. Why? Because they simply were not available when overseas on a military base in the early 90s. I still prefer not to play with one, because I have a very improvisational GMing style and breaking to set up a battle mat really breaks the flow and immersion for me. Players that I've had in the past tend to focus a lot on the mat, and sometimes aren't as creative tactically as they are without it.

But.

This style is not for everyone, and really does rely heavily on good GM and PC interactions, and a GM that can provide a lot of description.

[hogarth]

Lilith wrote:

I still prefer not to play with one, because I have a very improvisational GMing style and breaking to set up a battle mat really breaks the flow and immersion for me. Players that I've had in the past tend to focus a lot on the mat, and sometimes aren't as creative tactically as they are without it.

I admit that's probably the worst part of using a map; it increases the distinction between being in combat and being out of combat.

E.g. "Uh oh -- the GM's getting out a map. That means it's time to cast protection spells, guys!"

Or conversely: "Don't worry -- these guys obviously can't be a combat encounter because the GM doesn't have a map ready."

[Cartigan]

hogarth wrote:

Lilith wrote:

I still prefer not to play with one, because I have a very improvisational GMing style and breaking to set up a battle mat really breaks the flow and immersion for me. Players that I've had in the past tend to focus a lot on the mat, and sometimes aren't as creative tactically as they are without it.

I admit that's probably the worst part of using a map; it increases the distinction between being in combat and being out of combat.

E.g. "Uh oh -- the GM's getting out a map. That means it's time to cast protection spells, guys!"

Or conversely: "Don't worry -- these guys obviously can't be a combat encounter because the GM doesn't have a map ready."

Or you can just leave the map on the table and keep the fear aura going.

[hogarth]

Cartigan wrote:

hogarth wrote:

I admit that's probably the worst part of using a map; it increases the distinction between being in combat and being out of combat.

E.g. "Uh oh -- the GM's getting out a map. That means it's time to cast protection spells, guys!"

Or conversely: "Don't worry -- these guys obviously can't be a combat encounter because the GM doesn't have a map ready."

Or you can just leave the map on the table and keep the fear aura going.

Suppose your party spends the day going to the blacksmith's shop, then down the road to the local baron's castle, then to the castle's gate, then into the courtyard, then into the entrance hall, then into the baron's reception area. That's a lot of maps to have handy.

Now you could have a blank map at the ready, naturally, but some people like having fancy pre-printed maps to use.

[Stefan Hill]

hogarth wrote:

Now you could have a blank map at the ready

Then either there will be cries of "Quick protection spells, the DM is going for a Vivid Marker" or if the players are smart as DM prepares for the next mighty battle s/he cries out "Hey, anyone seen my Vivid?" <insert players looking around the room innocently> :)

For me PERSONALLY the time of getting the map set-up with terrain and then placing the figures takes to long and grounds ME back in the real World. I can be 1 or 2 rounds into combat without a map in that same time, officially starting a combat by either "you are surprise" or "roll for initiative" etc as appropriate.

What happens if your players then come up with a cunning plan to avoid the entire 'combat' encounter after you have set-up all your toys? It's almost like you are forcing the players hand by saying, here's the map and the monsters - fight! If they do use cunning to avoid the actual fight then it was sort of a pointless interruption to the flow of the game, well for me it would seem that way.

S.

[kyrt-ryder]

hogarth wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I certainly can't speak for everyone's games, but in my own, people get proper use out of a ton of AoO's. (To the point I've houseruled away combat reflexes, and given everybody three AoO's per turn.)

Yes...but you, the GM, have control over whether the PCs are getting AoOs. The players can't do much other than saying: "I move myself so that I can threaten as large an area as possible."

That's actually not true. I set the scene with so much detail that they know exactly where to place themselves defensively (or offensively lol.) Of course the bad guys could go around (and occasionally do) but I make sure everybody knows exactly where everything is. Like I said, I make a point to bring the battle to life.

[kyrt-ryder]

hogarth wrote:

Suppose the PCs want to squeeze past a couple of burly guards (maybe risking a few AoOs in the process) and box in a "boss" wizard who's standing behind them so that he can't cast a spell without provoking an AoO. From my experience, a GM using a map might grumble a little bit that his boss is being shut down, but he'll admit it's possible and he might even have some admiration for the players' tactics. But I suspect a GM who doesn't use a map will be tempted to just say "you can't do it, there are goons in the way" because (a) that's how he envisions it, and (b) he doesn't want his "boss monster" to be helpless. Do you see how in one situation the GM has control over the tactics and in the other case the GM and the PCs share that control?

Except that has happened several times in my campaigns (well, except the PC's either tumbled past the goons or over-ran them) but at least in my own campaigns, I have no control over the tactics. I set the scene, basically build a mental reality, and then the players roleplay and dice roll their way through it with whatever level of tactics they choose (which with my usual players is typically fairly high.)

hogarth wrote:

It's the difference between a foot race and a game of "Mother May I". Even if you're playing "Mother May I" completely fairly (if that even makes sense), it still takes control away from the racers.

Ok, let me set something straight for how I run my mapless battles. There is no 'mother may I' whatsoever. The scene is detailed completely. In my games, my players don't ask "GM may I do x" they say "Alright, I'm making a charge attack against the goblin Archer on the twenty foot high archer platform fourty feet away from my current position. Here's my jump check, I only need five feet of vertical clearance because of my reach weapon." They make the roll, realize they rolled high enough to get in range. "Take a powerful overhand swing with my halberd" They roll their attack roll and it's accompanying damage. "That's a hit Bob, and the damage kills it." And he then proceeds to RP cleaving the thing in two as it's blood explodes all over them.

[Kirth Gersen]

I usually go mapless, unless the fight will be occurring in an area with a lot of bottlenecks and obstructions and such, or if there will be a lot of combatants (more than 6 or so) moving around. In the latter cases, I'll have pre-drawn a map to scale, and we reluctantly break out the dolls.

Outside of that, the OP's "empower the players" advice is the real key. At my table, I hear a lot of things like the following:

"I'm going to try and tumble past the ogre, to get into a flanking position with Jack."

"I'm going to move laterally until I have a clear line of fire at the sorcerer."

"I'm going to move just enough to keep myself interposed between the minotaur and our wizard."

One thing to note is that this approach actually gives the melee characters some abilities they don't normally have in a turn-based, you-go-then-I-go system. The last example cited above -- one of the main things that everyone really wants a heavily-armored fighter to be able to do -- can't work on a battlemat taking turns, but it works quite well when you throw out the dolls and go mapless.

This also means that, as the DM, I have to make it clear that these sorts of things are not only possible, but encouraged.

On a final note to Hogarth, in most of my games, the PCs spend a lot of time setting things up so that when they finally corner the BBEG, he goes down like a chump. We generally eschew 10-round drag-out Rocky matches, so there isn't a lot of incentive for me to unfairly "protect" a BBEG by claiming map advantages that no one else can possibly know about.

[Illithar]

Use of a battlemat varies from by play style and I would also say by game system. When playing 3.x/PF I prefer to use the battle mat. We roll it out at the beginning of the session and if there's combat, great, if not oh well. About the only I would use it would be in combat, not to draw every little detail. Or some DM's may use it to sketch something for the players. I've seen it used many different ways.

However, some game systems simply don't work well with a battle mat. Mutants and Masterminds, while usable with a grid, if you have the right kind of characters it gets sort of... pointless. When you move action gets you to the moon or from New York to Moscow and then to Miami all while making a cup of coffee, the battle mat just isn't helping.

Outside of that I have never had the battle mat detract from my immersion into the given game or combat. If any thing it has helped, I tend to appreciate the fact that I am surrounded more when I can both see it and hear it described by the DM.

NOW all that said, this isn't to say that I would not enjoy a game that did not involve the use of maps. Most of my experience has been with that type of game. 3.x has been the reigning champion of games systems in my area since it's release for the most part and everyone I am aware of uses the grid.

The conversation I've seen seems to boil down to that. Most people seem to favor the style they have the most prior experience with. Which is not a bad thing, doing the opposite method would push them out of their comfort zone (one way or another).

I felt like I've rambled enough now...

[Lakesidefantasy]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I usually go mapless, unless the fight will be occurring in an area with a lot of bottlenecks and obstructions and such, or if there will be a lot of combatants (more than 6 or so) moving around. In the latter cases, I'll have pre-drawn a map to scale, and we reluctantly break out the dolls.

The map can be your friend but it can also be your worst enemy.

It's a bad habit, but I find myself automatically reaching for the markers as soon as I call initiative.

I ran an encounter recently with 3 PCs and 2 NPCs in a cheap room at an inn just 10' X 15'--that's 6 squares for five characters! (I'm cracking myself up just thinking about it.) The PCs and NPCs were just sitting around playing their roles and making deals, till some hotshot wanted to start a fight and suddenly nobody could maneuver because the bed was in the way.

That was a situation where the map was not our friend.