Salutations.
Back when I was in high school (many, many moons ago) and poor, we played D&D without using a battle mat. We did everything in our head for the most part. I went for a long time without playing, and when I came back, everyone I knew, for the most part, was using battle mats.
I have heard, however, that some groups somehow manage to still do combat without the use of battle mats. If you are one of those, I would love to hear how you do it, maybe some examples of how you handle things like distance, flanking, cover, etc. And, if you have some house rules posted somewhere, I would love a link so I could look them over.
Even if you do use a mat, I would love to hear other's opinion on the subject as well.
For distance, set a scale. Battlegrids are usually 1 inch squares being 5 feet. So without a grid, 1 inch is still 5 feet. Instead of relying on a concrete set of rules and positions, the DM needs to be comfortable making decisions on stuff, like if someone has cover or not.
If you can find a copy, look at the 3.0 Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook. The rules were gridless by default. (Optional rules for using a grid were in the Dungeon Masters Guide)
I'm comfortable with making any decisions needed on the fly, and much prefer gridless battles.
(Though my players sometimes arn't as happy - I make them choose the locations for their spells before they measure the distance. Sometimes the location they choose is out of range and the spell is wasted, or sometimes they place the fireball a little to close and get a party member in the blast. I hate the pinpoint, laser guided spells that always go exactly where you want down to the inch that happens with a grid system. I've also removed Attacks of opportunity, so knowing exactly where you threaten isn't necessary either.)
I almost never use a mat unless there's a lot of broken terrain, cover, and multiple assailants all milling around and getting in each others' way. As TOZ alludes, it requires players to ask more questions -- and more importantly for some people, it requires that the GM is often comfortable answering "yes" to those questions.
|
I almost never use a mat unless there's a lot of broken terrain, cover, and multiple assailants all milling around and getting in each others' way.
And if your encounter isn't at least as complex as that, why bother to get the dice out?
Life's too short to draw out a featureless 30' square room, just so your level 10 players can beat on four goblins/orcs/gnolls straight out of the book.
"They can't hit you, you can't miss them. They die. Next!"
Even the encounters of CR=APL are a total cakewalk, unless you throw some mitigating terrain or hazards into the mix.
And if your encounter isn't at least as complex as that, why bother to get the dice out?
My games, from mid-level up, tend towards rocket tag for BBEG fights. I like to let the PCs beat up on mooks, but always in the back of their heads should be the knowledge that sooner or later they'll fight someone who can kill them -- if they're unprepared, they'll have to roll up a new set of characters, but if they tilt the scales their way, he'll go down like a chump. But the big fights tend to be quick and dirty either way.
The dice add just enough of a random element that there's never a sure bet.
Either way, I disagree that it's impossible to have an interesting game, or to challenge the players, without resorting to playing with dolls. Terrain so complicated that you need a diagram is A way to make a fight more interesting or more challenging, but it's not the ONLY way to do so by a long shot.
Either way, I disagree that it's impossible to have an interesting game, or to challenge the players, without resorting to playing with dolls. Terrain so complicated that you need a diagram is A way to make a fight more interesting or more challenging, but it's not the ONLY way to do so by a long shot.
Playing with dolls... that is so classic, Kirth. :-)
I love the mats and the added precision that comes with them - big fights or small.
I remember the days before we used mats and miniatures and it was just frustrating. And when I GM'd I tried to find ways to add more detail to the battle positioning so it made more sense. Blackboards, dry erase boards, etc.
I don't miss those days at all. Sure the fights take longer, but to me it's worth it.
I like battle mats and own a number of the Paizo ones as well as the flip mat packs. I also have some of the Dave Graffam models. But for my current Kingmaker campaign, I've scaled back on using the battle mats. Basically, I pull out the battle mats for the larger encounters or if the PCs are in a dungeon, etc. But for the random encounters while their exploring hexes, we do without a battle map. It speeds up play and the players have said they like this method after our last campaign which used mats for everything. For the nonmat battles, I generally roll for a starting encounter distance and have the players roll perception if the monster has stealth. If the PCs are in the woods, they can declare what actions they are doing to give them cover, like hiding behind trees.
I am a big fan of MEGS and RIFT'S There is no mat big enough when you have people with ranges and sensory powers that can hit you on the Earth from orbit... around Mars.
I actually try and encourage my GM to use the minis but more like 40K just use a tape ruler to move the 3-12 inches your character can move no silly diagonals take 2. throw boxes, dice bags, or actual terrain out there and go.
He isn't really going for it sadly :(
Well I truly believe that the only reason 3rd edition introduced the battlemat as integral to combat as it is is just so WOTC was able to make even more money off the sales of minis I actually once I got used to using it actually liked the mat better, it freed up a lot of my mind when I DM and makes combat a bit easier to run
I played map-less in 2nd ed, all through high school, found it kinda irksome.
I remember getting my hands on the TSR Player's Option:Combat and Tactics and they had the first chapter devoted to using a battle mat and it was love at first sight, I knew from the troll combat onward that I wanted battlemats and an oodle of minis, but didn't have cash for either back then.
Now 11 years later, I've done some map less "theater of the mind" stuff at the request of players or for simple combats, often cause we're to lazy to position minis for a simple fight vs a lone NPC. Generally though I feel generally it detracts from the experience.
I've also had some luck with 40K style ruler play, works really well for players who have warhammer/wargames experience and particularly for outdoor combats. Come to think of it I should do more of that.
Of course d20 introduced mats&minis to make more money, and that's even without considering mini sales. A better game will sell more books, a mat makes a better game (in this system). Vis-a-vis a OGL game employing battle mats is more profitable. To support this highly opinionated argument I'll point out that both before and after WOTC was making pre-painted minis they have had licensed offerings of paper tokens for use with battle mats.
I think that battlemaps are great for pathfinder and feel generally that theater of the mind is regressive for the OGL based games. Then again I have players who jump at the chance to ditch the map.
Even if you do use a mat, I would love to hear other's opinion on the subject as well.
TOZ and Kirth said most of what I think is necessary to play without maps and minis: Willingness form players to ask questions and willingness from the DM to agree on players' requests. To this I would add a certain skill from the DM to describe scenes efficiently, giving the essential of the layout in a concise description.
Without minis, precise distance and areas should be relaxed a bit. 'Withing range' and 'out of range' usually suffice (no need to precise that the enemy is exactly 25 feet away). Combat become more elastic; interceptions and AoO become more a call of the DM. All in all, the combat relies more on DM's fiat.
This houserule was born from a 'mind-eyes theatre' game. I often find flanking to be one of the main source of conflict in games without a precise map. Oftentimes, it suffice to say that "me and the rogue flank this guy" but I find that my gang-up houserule solves the problem of multiple flanking without a tactical map.
With the right players (and the right DM) , playing without a map has been a liberating experience; players were coming with solutions, movements and tactics that they wouldn't have otherwise with the tactical map. Combat were a lot less technical and a lot more theatrical. Half of my most memorable combat were done without maps and minis. The other half were using the map, often when each 5-foot square made the whole difference.
In short, playing without a map is fun; but a different fun than playing with a map. As a DM, I go were the preference of my players go but I must admit that as a player, I prefer map-less 'mind-eyes theatre' games.
'findel
|
My original DM never used to use a mat-- he'd just describe the battlefield. He never used any terrain features that might sway combat at all-- apparently every combat took place in a clearing that was however wide it needed to be. This meant no cover, no concealment, no high ground (I didn't even know high ground was a thing until I tried DMing myself), and he homebrewed his own flanking rules based on which direction your opponents are facing. Also, reach weapons were practically disallowed.
Now that I'm the DM, I use battlemats, and I try to make the terrain impact the combat, but it's tough because we're all used to terrain not mattering. I introduce cover, high ground, and etc., but my players just see it all as obstacles and walk around it to get at the enemy.
Now that I type it, I think I really need to make some enemies that exploit the terrain.