I'm glad that it's worked well for you; in fact I'd be interested to try a game with a group that DOES do it well.
I've always been comfortable running fights without a battlemap, since I played for many years without ever touching one. In fact, complex or confusing scenes sometimes seemed to work better without one.
Unfortunately, some folks have had the opposite experience...
My frustration with the lack of a map is the inability to get creative regarding positioning. I would liken it to how I sometimes feel when I'm playing an Interactive Fiction game, feeling like I have to sit there and try things and being told "You can't do that", "That's not allowed" over and over again. Sometimes it's felt like that in mapless combats. If you just drew me a map I'd know who was close enough, how far I needed to go, what position to put myself in relative to my allies, etc.
Battlemats are a tool, but there are ways of providing the same information without them. There are ways to approach fights without them.
Set the Scene!
The Gamemaster needs to constantly help the players keep oriented. Start with a picture or sketch of the area, either a quick drawing to help them get oriented or (even better) a picture or photograph.
"A towering ruin looms before you, the remains of an ancient keep." Shows photo of old keep cribbed from the Internet) "Goblin figures clutching bows can be seen scrambling up the walls. Roll initiative, everyone."
As each player's turn comes up, let them know how far they are from the nearest foe, whether they have a clear shot or the enemy has cover, and hint what options might easily work for them.
"Five of the goblin archers are still climbing and don't have cover yet. The other three have found cover and are getting ready to shoot. The gateway is about 35 feet from you. You can hear something big approaching, but it hasn't reached the gate where you can see it yet. Rory the Northerner is still out in the open, but the rest of the party has some large boulders between them and the enemy, so they have cover."
That sounds like a lot of description, but once everyone visualizes the scene, things speed up quite a bit.
Empower the Players!
This is one of the most important points! Let your players have as much right to describe the scene as you do. If they're in a bar, they don't need to ask if they can find a tray of pewter tankards, they just grab one! If they're in the ruin of an anceint keep and need fallen stonework to leap upon, let them. As long as it doesn't contradict something needed to make the scene work, let them fill in the details themselves.
It takes a bit of encouragement to get players to this point, but it's worth it. Once they get the idea, they'll pull out all kinds of cool moves during fights. Battles become wilder and more creative.
There are some players you need to keep in check, or they'll try to abuse their freedom. If something just doesn't make sense or is wildly self-serving, you're still the GM and should veto it. "I grab a skull from among the old bones in the graveyard and heave it at the sorcerer to interrupt his spell" is good. "There's an old composite bow and arrows that were left in one of the tombs" is abusing things. In a castle armory, such a find might not be inappropriate, but not in a graveyard!
Keep Moving!
Some GM fiat is needed, but you should have a good picture of the villains' and heroes' positions. Don't bog down about details, just decide and keep moving. Keep the players moving along, too: When you're running things in a free-form manner, you shouldn't agonize over every detail. You know what seems fair: Go with it!
What tips do you guys have? Let's help some folks throw off the shackles of their battlemats!
|
I hate using batlemats.
In other Threads where we've talked about this over the years my advice has been thus: let the PCs let the DM know what they want to do and let the DM allow or disallow it --
I want my fireball to get the BBEG and as many mooks as I can without burning Bob.
I'm gonna flank with Bob so I get my sneak attack; I'll take 5' steps as I need to.
Is a move action enough to get me out of range so I can use my Standard Action this round to Channel Energy?
Hey, don't forget I have the Feat, Step Up -- I'll use it everytime one of the wimpy Balors backs off.
....That kinda schtick.
And the DM says
Okay, you can get the BBEG and 1 mook with the fireball or you can get ALL the mooks -- which one?
Okay, take your flanking bonus -- and btw, after you first flank the BBEG you see just how Uncannily he Dodges your Flanking attempt.
Sure, you're out of range and can Channel this round.
It makes the game SOOO much faster than the lame ass "counting squares like a tortise" method.
<snark>
While we're getting rid of battlemats, why don't we go ahead and throw out character sheets and dice too? After all, if we're just going to ask permission from the GM and let him decide what works and what doesn't, why not go all the way?
</snark>
I can't possibly be the only player who looks at the map and sees additional ideas as to how to use the configuration of enemies to my advantage, which I would have never thought of from a scene description.
I know I'm not the only player who enjoys tactics, flanking, cover, and all that jazz.
And I assume I'm not the only player who wants spell ranges, range increments on weapons, and faster and slower movement speeds to have an in-game effect.
Finding a clever solution to a problem is fun. More spatial information about the situation allows for another dimension for finding a clever solution -- and this is a dimension that I personally enjoy as part of running 3.X-style combat.
There are a lot of features of 3.X-style combat that are effectively ignored without a map -- unless your GM is essentially keeping a private map in his head. In which case, why can't he draw the darn thing for you?
I don't even use a battlemat and miniatures at my table as often as I just use a whiteboard and markers -- but at least I can follow 3.X rules that way.
|
|
You're certainly not the only one that loves battlemats.
We've gone back and forth in these Threads a few times over the last few years.
In my experience -- getting some Players who love battlemats to try a session with no mat has been very good.
I agree that the DM has to be a good DM -- has to be fair and consistant.
But man, once you first have a great fight that takes 30 minutes instead of 2 hours -- and you see how your PCs did exactly the same stuff as they would have with the mat -- and how much more fun it was not just because of the quickness but because the DM could actually describe the fight without having the mat in the way -- well, you can understand why so many gamers hate battlemats.
Years ago back in first edition we gamed without minis and maps or battlemats, and it was fun. However, when I DMed, I found that I was always drawing little dots or letters on the maps included in the adventures (if I was running a written adventure) to keep track of where party members and monsters were. That quickly translated into a sheet of paper on the table where I'd make those same marks so everyone could see, then the logical progression into hex-sided battlemats and minis to do the same thing in a smoother, better-looking way. I've never looked back. In our case, since I gamed with a group of pretty tactically-minded folks who also played wargames, I found that it actually sped our game up by ending time-consuming arguments about line of sight, area of effect, movement, terrain difficulties, etc. That might just be the case in the groups I played with, though, and I can see going without the battlemat in a group with a highly descriptive GM who is trusted completely by his/her players, particularly if those players are more interested in the story than in the tactics, and haven't much urge to rules lawyer.
I appreciate the no maps/battlemat thing and my hat is off to those who can do it well. Just not my preferred style of working. Perhaps with the right group I'll give it a whirl again some day.
<snark>While we're getting rid of battlemats, why don't we go ahead and throw out character sheets and dice too? After all, if we're just going to ask permission from the GM and let him decide what works and what doesn't, why not go all the way?</snark>
AvalonXQ, you said that you'd like to see a group that runs fights well without a battlemat. I'm merely trying to grant that wish.
I can't possibly be the only player who looks at the map and sees additional ideas as to how to use the configuration of enemies to my advantage, which I would have never thought of from a scene description.
I know I'm not the only player who enjoys tactics, flanking, cover, and all that jazz.
There are some scenes where a battlemat helps tremendously. I love using my minis and maps! On the other hand, there are some scenes where a battlemat can work against a clear visualization of the scene. Surely you've encountered situations where poor drawings of complex situations or poorly chosen minis gave you a false impression?
Picture a battle like one of the fights in the Pirates of the Caribbean flims, with characters balancing in a rolling mill wheel. Depicting that on a battlemat would be a pain.
And I assume I'm not the only player who wants spell ranges, range increments on weapons, and faster and slower movement speeds to have an in-game effect.
Running fights without a battlemat requires more work from the GM, who has to visualize and effectively communicate that information. It can be done.
Finding a clever solution to a problem is fun. More spatial information about the situation allows for another dimension for finding a clever solution -- and this is a dimension that I personally enjoy as part of running 3.X-style combat.
There are a lot of features of 3.X-style combat that are effectively ignored without a map -- unless your GM is essentially keeping a private map in his head. In which case, why can't he draw the darn thing for you?
If you were my player and removing the battlemat reduced your fun, I would not want to do that! I skip the battlemat for situations like chases or other fast moving, chaotic scenes, where the battlemat just holds up the pace. I pull it out for most fights.
Some players look at a battlemat and fail to see the details of the scene. They're focused on what's before them and fail to consider creative alternatives because they're not detailed on the map. That's what I want to avoid: I want the players to see what I don't have time to draw as well as what I do draw. Drawn on a battlemat, a fight in a crowded market can't possibly include every detail of the scene: In the players' imaginations, those details can come to life!
"I heave a pineapple at the sorcerer!"
Some things I like with 'em, some things I like without 'em.
Typically it depends on what I'm playing. If I'm playing something that really rewards finesse and maneuvering and movement, then yeah, I generally perfer bringing out the ol' MapTools. If I'm not, I generally don't mind keeping it in IRC.
'Course, these days, I mostly game online, which flavors my opinion. It's way easier in many ways to use MapTools then it is to use a real life battlemat.
I hope that we can share ideas on the topic of How action scenes can be run most effectively without a battlemat.
If we digress too far into "The (dis)advantages of battlemats", we may never find out what suggestions people have to offer.
I hope that we can share ideas on the topic of How action scenes can be run most effectively without a battlemat.
If we digress too far into "The (dis)advantages of battlemats", we may never find out what suggestions people have to offer.
I, for one, would love to hear some suggestions for how to run a good action scene without a map. I tend to be a tinker and a rules lawyer, but I've mostly had to put that aside with my current group, who loves to play fast and loose with the rules and without any visual aids. However, it irks me a lot when my character, specifically built to be fast and maneuverable on the battlefield, can reach his opponent as quickly as the dwarf in full plate--not to mention countless other scenarios. I mostly avoid saying anything to the DM because I don't want to continually undermine his authority or detract from my friends' fun--these are pretty much my best friends, after all--but quite frankly, it seems that a number of class features and feats such as Fast Movement, Skirmish, Mobility, and Combat Reflexes are rendered underpowered, 95% ignored, or outright useless without a battlemat.
I grew up playing without figures and mats, and it worked great most of the time. I remember it much like Sir Wulf describes it above. As DM I had the dungeon map not in my head, but on small graph paper behind the DM screen, and I made little marks to indicate positions, and described the action accordingly. This included the sounds, sights, feelings, and smells of battle.
Occasionally the situation was too complex and we drew X's and O's on a piece of graph paper. This worked fine too, but once the action got underway, we found we didn't keep coming back to the drawing. It was all in the head.
Today I use dry erase markers on plexiglass over large graph paper, and we use figurines. This works well too, but one thing that I've noticed is this: the action no longer seems as exciting. I try to describe what's going on, but the players seem to mostly ignore that and focus on the squares. How many can I move, will this provoke an AoO, etc. Very mechanical. Yes, there's still some color, but it is somewhat diminished.
I'm sure it's not this dry for everyone using maps, but that's what has happened at my table.
I hate using batlemats.
In other Threads where we've talked about this over the years my advice has been thus: let the PCs let the DM know what they want to do and let the DM allow or disallow it --
That's an okay approach for a tabletop game, but in a PbP game you sometimes have to wait a day or more for a reply from the GM. So trying two things, having them not work, and finally settling on a third thing could take almost a week instead of a single day if the player had a map available in the first place.
Some people prefer a thousand words to a picture, though. To each his own. :-)
I too remember the days of 1st Edition with no battlemat or miniatures for that matter. When we brought in the minis, that's when the battlemat soon followed. We have been using it ever since with every system (1st through 3.x/PF) because it gave us a "cool" visualization for the action going on. Years pass...and now I find myself fondly remembering the days without the battlemat because it seemed simpler. I've found that the battlemat, at times, turns the RPG into a game of chess. How many people can tell exactly how far 30' is while a combat is raging around them? I've seen this kind of thing too many times with spell ranges and such.
<snark>
While we're getting rid of battlemats, why don't we go ahead and throw out character sheets and dice too? After all, if we're just going to ask permission from the GM and let him decide what works and what doesn't, why not go all the way?
</snark>
I was going to say something like that, but without the snark tags. The game is really built around a set of rules that, when in the thick and heavy of it, needs some sort of visual depiction of what is going on, if only to alleviate all the questions regarding said rules.
I'm pretty sure White Wolf has a whole series of games based solely around describing what the devil is going on.
I hope that we can share ideas on the topic of How action scenes can be run most effectively without a battlemat.
Through the not using a number of rules or the ability to convince all players that they have to describe exactly what they are doing in a way that the rules are taken into consideration.
But given that 75% of all players I know can't keep track of when the Bard is singing...
I'll admit that one of the hooks for me to try Burning wheel was the allure of trying a sophisticated, strategic combat system without a battlemap.
We haven't actually managed to get together to do it, though.
I dare you to use a monster with trample or a line effect spell/weapon in a mapless combat. :P
I dare you to use a monster with trample or a line effect spell/weapon in a mapless combat. :P
Actually, those things would probably work okay; you just affect one or two "close" enemies and maybe one or two "far" enemies.
What really suffers (in my experience) are feats and class features that involve attacks of opportunity, like Combat Reflexes.
|
I dare you to use a monster with trample or a line effect spell/weapon in a mapless combat. :P
We did this successfully for many years.
That aside. As the OP and Ray said, the players must trust the DM a lot more. The DM must be much more the story-teller as the players must be able to picture events in their imagination. Sure the odd pointing of pens at a rough map helps, but figures and squares aren't required. It does give the DM a little more room to move with regards to artistic license to make the combat a little more fun. Once a map/grid is down your pretty much stuck with distances being exactly as shown. Without a map if the fighter wants to charge as DM you can say things like "the orcs looks about 60' away", then the player can decide or not if that's cutting things a little close and the DM can decide the final outcome - charge successful or not. Using a map the same fighter simply counts the squares and knows 100% the outcome before attempting. For me as a DM & player that feels a little like all PC's come with GPS. Others don't like the idea that the end result, as in my example, ending up in the hands of the DM. Again much more trust in your DM is required. Still with my DM hat on, I find the experience of running a combat more rewarding.
By default no mat for me as a DM, but as a player I respect the wishes of my DM, if they say mat, then I play using a mat.
S.
What really suffers (in my experience) are feats and class features that involve attacks of opportunity, like Combat Reflexes.
If I know that my PCs (or their foes) have feats like that, I'll picture them shifting toward the location where their abilities will do the most good. In some games, my mental map has given them more attacks of opportunity than the battlemat would have.
|
|
What really suffers (in my experience) are feats and class features that involve attacks of opportunity, like Combat Reflexes.If I know that my PCs (or their foes) have feats like that, I'll picture them shifting toward the location where their abilities will do the most good. In some games, my mental map has given them more attacks of opportunity than the battlemat would have.
Hogarth has a valid point from 3.0e --> 3.5e --> PF/4e the combat mechanics have become increasing tied to the idea of squares on a battle-mat. What you suggest, and I do also, is really trying to adapt the rules to not using a mat rather than the rules themselves supporting this style of play.
S.
Very nice advice by the OP for how to work without a battlemat
I prefer play with a battlemat because...
1. I am a very visual person whereas my auditory-processing abilities have gaps. I will have to ask the GM/players three times where everyone is standing, what the thingy looks like, etc. if I don't draw a map (even if it's a scribbledy thing on my own notepad if the GM doesn't use maps). Mind, I played without maps long before I ever played with one and can do it; I just prefer to have one.
2. For Pathfinder and other d20 games specifically, because of all the tactics related to squares of movement, threatened areas, etc. You can do without it, but I personally find you get the most out of the way this particular system works if you work with the battlegrid.
3. Players who "teleport" themselves all over the battlefield ("no, I wasn't standing next to that Ogre, I was over there!") if they have no map to hold them accountable. Or even just issues of confusion that take up time in their own way ("No no, there are THREE doors, not TWO, one that's over there..."
HOWEVER, I am certainly also all for immersion and understand why people don't find using a map palatable. There is no such thing as your fun being wrong and mine being right.
I would like to know a little bit more (realizing some of it has been touched upon) how GMs handle items 1-3 when they don't use battlemats---how do you handle AOOs, do feats like Mobility or Combat Patrol lose some meaning, etc.? Has there ever been a player who has felt like he was cheated for taking a very tactical feat/ability/spell, and how did you deal with that? Thanks. :)
What really suffers (in my experience) are feats and class features that involve attacks of opportunity, like Combat Reflexes.If I know that my PCs (or their foes) have feats like that, I'll picture them shifting toward the location where their abilities will do the most good. In some games, my mental map has given them more attacks of opportunity than the battlemat would have.
A pet peeve of mine is the GM having on a "mental map" that he/she relies on to make decisions but refuses to share with me, the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A pet peeve of mine is the GM having on a "mental map" that he/she relies on to make decisions but refuses to share with me, the player.
If I fail to convey what's going on, I have failed.
In addition to battle mats, my arsenal should include quick sketches depicting the area and reference pictures taken from the Internet, National Geographic, movie sets, or similar sources. These show crowded bazaars, ancient temples, ruins, castles, and other places where fights might occur.
The difference between knocking out a quick sketch versus drawing a battlemat is the expectation of accuracy and precision that many players bring to the table. If they see a map laid out on a grid, they expect those measurements to be precise and accurate, and they base their decisions of what they see. For instance, if the mat doesn't depict hundreds of barrels, boxes, and panicky bystanders cluttering the map, it's easy for them to forget they're looking at a poor representation. They forget the items, even though the area's description clearly mentioned them. As a GM, I'm faced with either stopping the action to draw out tons of crap cluttering the map, or I may have to screw up someone's cool moment by reminding him he can't charge or that several innocent bystanders are in his spell's area of effect. The map's visual image trumps the verbal description in many people, no matter how detailed the verbal description might be.
If the players' visual references are photographs and a hasty sketch, they are forced to picture the battlefield in their heads. They're much more oriented toward the information they heard, especially if it contains numerous visual cues.
The information I presented was oriented toward complex fights, such as those in cluttered or constantly-changing areas. Fights in simple places like 10-foot wide hallways shouldn't take much imagination to picture. Once you know the party's marching order and whether any of them key ahead or hang behind, it's easy to visualize how the fight develops.
To ensure that players don't feel "cheated" by their choice of tactical feats such as combat reflexes or mobility, I try to describe when those advantages come into play. "When he sees you turn to smash his brother, the orc lunges past, expecting you to be distracted. Due to your trained reflexes, he isn't fast enough: Take an attack of opportunity."
Keep in mind, the events on the battlefield may occur in "turn order", but they're acvtually happening virtually simultaneously. Activities can be described in cinematic detail, rather than just "the orc attacks." Getting rid of the grid sometimes makes such descriptions easier for me.
Ease of use aside, I've found that my players often get more creative when playing without a battlemap. When you can see your litte dude on a grid where all the other enemies are represented, it's very easy to focus only on what's present on the map. All too often we forgot about the chandelier hanging over the room, that table in the corner we could use in any number of ways, or what may lie in the rooms beyond the map.
Without a map, my players are usually less inclined to see their PCs as a list of numbers once a fight breaks out, and really think about what they can do with the tools and abilities they have at hand.
|
What really suffers (in my experience) are feats and class features that involve attacks of opportunity, like Combat Reflexes.
This is the main reason I use a mat. That and trying to juggle a complex combat with enemy positions mentally is painful for me. I often run extremely large and complex combats, and without a map I simply couldn't do that.
People at my university games society ran a 3.5 one shot some time ago, with no battle map. The organisation was horrific. I had to ask for a retcon no less than three times as I was using a reach weapon with combat reflexes.
This is the main reason I use a mat. That and trying to juggle a complex combat with enemy positions mentally is painful for me. I often run extremely large and complex combats, and without a map I simply couldn't do that.
People at my university games society ran a 3.5 one shot some time ago, with no battle map. The organisation was horrific. I had to ask for a retcon no less than three times as I was using a reach weapon with combat reflexes.
There are some situations where a battle mat is better. Please come play at my table sometime: I won't forget your polearm and combat reflexes.
|
|
Has there ever been a player who has felt like he was cheated for taking a very tactical feat/ability/spell, and how did you deal with that? Thanks. :)
The short answer is yes. I have a player who decided to choose other feats because the ones he originally had just weren't going to function in the strict tactical sense he had taken them for. Did he feel cheated? Well honestly, probably. His character was pure 100% PF, but with the absence of a battle-mat, was not likely to function in a crunch-sense as he had 'built'. Still nice chap, respected that the DM has the short end of the stick and him spending an hour rethinking feats was better than me rethinking every encounter was fairer.
My players are nice, they trust their DM :)
Usually we just go with describing the scene/battle until someone needs a visual representation of where everyone is relative to each other (usually for a spell).
I'm not really sure what qualifies as a battle mat.
We have a sheet of plexiglass over a grid on the table that we just use a crayon on to sketch the outline of the area. Then we throw some dice or miniatures on to represent where everyone is.
|
|
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.)
I've found after I introduced the concept of 'engaged' once in melee it helped our game. For example if you are 'engaged' (meaning within 10') then you can't not 'escape' from combat without either (a) someone else attacking the creature in question or (b) taking a free round of attacks against you. In case (b) if the opponent has equal or greater movement you still end up in melee - so no point trying to run really. Like to say these are my ideas, but I stole them from 1e AD&D. Makes the combats feel less like the board-game Kyrt mentioned.
S.
|
|
Except combat isn't quite so simple. Engaged in meelee is a decent concept, but some aspects, like the 'still engaged in meelee if your opponent is equal or faster' doesn't fly if you have allies you're opponent would rather attack (or have to attack because you're running to hide behind them.)Additionally, there are many cases where you could gain the advantage by moving. Say, for example, the combat is near a narrow uphill slope where you can force Higher Ground, or if you're fighting a group and either back into a corner, or behind a doorway to minimize the attackers you're facing per turn.
I guess I should say also you can do a fight retreat, which allow positioning, up-slope or in doorway etc.
Follow up in any case is completely up to the person/monster moving. I didn't make that clear. So if A runs away from B, B gets free hits (full attack) against them and then A moves off. B then can either automatically 'follow-up' (if fast enough) or wait until their turn and engage someone else. Never turn your back on an enemy still means something in my games :) It promotes team work, if C steps in to engage B, then A can move off without attack - of course B could follow A but in this case C would get to bash B. It's far simpler in practise than I have made it sound.
It works out fine, if your opponent wants to ignore you and move off to attack an ally - same rules free hits.
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."
A pet peeve of mine is the GM having on a "mental map" that he/she relies on to make decisions but refuses to share with me, the player.
This is why good communication between the DM and players is key to operating without a battle map. You've got to communicate the general setup, interact with the players about what they can accomplish in a single move action and choices they can make to avoid opportunity attacks and disadvantageous positions.
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."
And there's nothing wrong with that when you consider 2 things: 1) the GM still has control over whether the PCs are getting AoOs when using a grid because they're triggered by the NPCs' actions, and 2) the main difference between saying that they want to move to threaten as large an area as possible and picking a spot on the grid with which to do that is the specificity of the grid. A GM running a fair game runs it fairly on or off the grid. If the NPCs were inclined to avoid AoO on the grid, they're inclined to avoid them off the grid as well, and vice versa.
This is why good communication between the DM and players is key to operating without a battle map. You've got to communicate the general setup, interact with the players about what they can accomplish in a single move action and choices they can make to avoid opportunity attacks and disadvantageous positions.
A pet peeve of mine is the GM having on a "mental map" that he/she relies on to make decisions but refuses to share with me, the player.
I don't remotely see how this saves time or has advantages over the map just being drawn.
And there's nothing wrong with that when you consider 2 things: 1) the GM still has control over whether the PCs are getting AoOs when using a grid because they're triggered by the NPCs' actions, and 2) the main difference between saying that they want to move to threaten as large an area as possible and picking a spot on the grid with which to do that is the specificity of the grid.
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."
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?
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.
A GM running a fair game runs it fairly on or off the grid.
Perhaps, but you get into a sort of paradox: if the GM is truly running the game map fairly in his mind (i.e. he is accurately keeping track of exactly where everyone is, and he's accurately describing exactly what each of the PCs can do in terms of movement), then what's the point of not using a map? Describing a map exactly is always going to take more time and effort than just showing the map in the first place.
But given that 75% of all players I know can't keep track of when the Bard is singing...
This kind of cuts to the heart of my... I won't say objection, but thing I'm wondering how no-mat-folk work around:
I feel like no-mat requires that all of the players be paying full and undivided attention for the duration of the combat; that no one go to the bathroom, or stop to look something up, or chat with another player, or wrangle an errant pet or child, or whatever.
Except in the case of running games as a kid with only 1-2 players, I don't think I've ever had those kinds of conditions. Someone's always wandering off for a minute here or there to get a piece of pizza or smoke or whatever.
The advantage of some kind of visual representation there is that it gives you as a player a pretty good shorthand of what's going on without having to stop the game and ask as many questions.
Even for most of pre-3E, we weren't using a battlemat or exact movement speeds or the like, but we did have minis out or drawing on a whiteboard or some kind of visual representation of roughly who was positioned where.
How do you work around this as a matless GM? Slip some Ritalin into the punch bowl? Or do you just have a more focused group than I ever have across many different groups of people?
Even for most of pre-3E, we weren't using a battlemat or exact movement speeds or the like, but we did have minis out or drawing on a whiteboard or some kind of visual representation of roughly who was positioned where.
How do you work around this as a matless GM?
From my experiences (some good, some less good):
There are two types of fights -- fights against "mooks" and fights against "bosses".
In the "mook" fights, you just let the players do whatever they want. If they want to flank? Sure, why not. Tumble past a dozen guards? Fine, no problem. Etc.
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.
As noted above, some GMs presumably have a very accurate mental map, so they use that instead, I guess.
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.
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?
No. I don't see the difference in control. I see a difference in rules used, which is, I think, a different question. On or off the grid, what rules are in use to keep the player from pushing through the guards to get to the wizard? You can try to run around them if there's a gap, possibly through threatened areas. You can try to get directly through their spaces if there isn't a gap. Both cases have rules, on grid or off, that apply the same in both situations... if the GM is ruling fairly... which he should in either case.
I suppose you could argue that use of a battle map makes it harder for the GM to rule unfairly, or at least for there to be a certain common understanding of the layout of the situation that leads to player confirmation that the GM is ruling fairly. But that does come with other implications, including management overhead from the fiddly physical bits of the game.
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.
I don't remotely see how this saves time or has advantages over the map just being drawn.
I hear you, Bill, and have experienced just those kinds of players. Of course, there is no reason any DM has to tolerate that behavior. A combat round is supposed to be six seconds. There is no time for that amount of planning, so no reason a DM should allow it. I expect people to be ready with their actions when their turn comes. If they aren't and want to sit there and fumble with the rulebook looking up spells or counting out squares and weighing alternatives, I press them to make a quick decision and then if they don't I rule their character is doing nothing that round. I'm a little more forgiving with younger or less experienced players, but I'm always pressing to keep the game moving. This is speed chess, not grandmaster tournament play. That frequently means the players will make less than optimal choices for what they do, because they have to act NOW, not after they've throughly researched all the options. Note that this still gives players a lot more than six seconds to decide their actions, as they have all the time when their teammates and the bad guys are acting, so it's still not realistic, but it's closer and it speeds up play a lot.
You've got to communicate the general setup, interact with the players about what they can accomplish in a single move action and choices they can make to avoid opportunity attacks and disadvantageous positions.
I don't remotely see how this saves time or has advantages over the map just being drawn.
Although it takes time to bring everyone up to speed, the GM doesn't need to communicate much information every round. Once the scene is set, some characters won't move much. Others find some location and park there, perhaps forming a shield wall or firing missile weapons from cover. The GM can quickly summarize what's they're doing and keep things moving.
I've found that combats I run without battlemats take a fraction of the time needed for fights with the mat. It's easier to move through the party quickly, listening to each one's actions and quickly moving on. I'll ask them what they're doing and they can usually answer immediately (and roll, if needed). The players don't have to agonize over spell areas of effect and possible AoOs because I've got that covered. (I err on the side of generosity, ensuring that the players are at least as effective as they would have been with a map.)
Don't get me wrong: Sometimes battlemats work more effectively for describing a situation. In my games, I freely switch between each approach.
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.
I don't remotely see how this saves time or has advantages over the map just being drawn.
I most certainly have which is WHY I made that statement.
"Can I move behind the Orc?""Will that provoke an attack of opportunity?"
"The Orc moved. Is it within X feet of me? It provokes an AoO."
"Is there enough room for me to charge."
etc, etc, etc.
You know why it takes the most time on the map board for the players? Because they are more than one person and usually a large number of the things on the map by themselves. If you want to hand-wave most of the rules and if the PLAYERS are willing to hand-wave the rules, then sure, you can run it in your head. 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. Our games already get bogged down by the fact that maps aren't 3 dimensional.
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?
When I launched this thread, I emphasized the need to empower your players: This is one of the situations where that comes home.
Empower the Players!
This is one of the most important points! Let your players have as much right to describe the scene as you do. If they're in a bar, they don't need to ask if they can find a tray of pewter tankards, they just grab one! If they're in the ruin of an ancient keep and need fallen stonework to leap upon, let them. As long as it doesn't contradict something needed to make the scene work, let them fill in the details themselves.
A player shouldn’t be told no just because it would upset the GM’s schemes. Even if the GM described a couple of burly thugs blocking people from easily getting to their boss, that doesn’t automatically give him the right to say “no way”. He makes it clear that there are a couple of goons blocking the way and suggests that they’ll need to do something to get past them. The PCs can bull rush, overrun, tumble, or pull some stunt to get past them.
Get your players out of the mindset of “These are the rules: I can move XX squares” and into trying something imaginative. To give a wild example from a game I once played in, one player declared that “I rush forward, grabbing the edge of the table and flipping it over into the thugs’ faces. As they try to disentangle themselves from the tablecloth, I’ll continue moving past them to reach the wizard!”
Of course, that "Jackie Chan"-style move required quick thinking from the GM, but if your players aren’t making you use a little brain sweat, they aren’t trying hard enough! Let go of cut and dried rule mechanisms and extrapolate from your experience.
Some people would have shut down such a stunt: “It takes a move action to grab the edge off the table, then a standard action to fling it up as cover, leaving you no actions left to move to the wizard.” I don’t see it that way, as I can easily visualize something like that happening in an action movie. Grabbing a table edge while moving is no harder than tumbling or drawing a weapon: Functionally, the guy is trying something like tumbling past his foes, substituting his “tumbling table” move (An improvised weapon attack) for the Acrobatics roll.