I guess question one is, do most people just use one?
If people do not, how do you deal with not seeing figures or indicators for things like charging, spells, etc?
I don't mind using them, but I'd like to think that most battles simply do not need them, but maybe I'm wrong.
I grew up without them, and it worked just fine, so clearly in the age of dinosaurs, it works, but maybe that's the past.
I use one, and as I'm a very visual person, it really helps me. I really wouldn't play Pathfinder without it. (When we have played D&D or Pathfinder without the battlemat, I get very confused very quickly trying to keep track of what's going on.) And this is coming from beginning my RP "life" as playing games with no battle visuals for many years... I really would not go back if I could at all help it.
Battlemats have also helped us avoid arguments, which slow down combat. I remember a game where we had a player whose position tended to magically "change" from turn to turn. "I'm standing by the ogre." *combat ensues, then the ogre attacks the player* "I didn't say I was standing by the ogre, I was standing by the bridge!" *more combat, something happens that makes the bridge collapse* "I wasn't standing by the bridge, I was standing by the ogre!"
GM introduced the battlemat, that kind of nonsense stopped instantly.
Some people can work without it just fine. A lot of people play and don't worry a lot about threatened areas and AOOS--and that can even lead to a more streamlined game.... especially for them, the battlemat is less necessary in terms of determining tactics.
The main thing if you don't want to use a battlemat is make sure
1. You determine how carefully or not you will track threatened areas and AOOs.
2. You feel you can estimate who is affected in AOEs fairly.
3. You don't have players like me who are utterly lost without them.
4. You have mature players who won't abuse the lack of a battlemat to change the situation they are in.
You can game without battlemats. I did that for years and years.
The game rules are now integrated with battlemats, so while the rules discussions using mats are greatly reduced, not using mats can lead to more rules discussions that try to orient things according to the nonexistent battlemat.
I recommend using the mats since they are now so integral to the rules. I have not seen any immersion or role playing difficulties, and if anything they have speeded up my combat situations.
|
I use a mix. For major boss battles or tactically complex combats I'll draw up the battlemat. For random encounters or filler battles my players are ok with a narrated combat.
When playing without battle-mats it's important for the players to ask questions and the GM to adjudicate quickly. The GMs word is law, when he says "You'll catch anyone in melee with that area spell", then the players need to accept the risk vs reward option they have.
Non-battle-mat combats also tend to bring out more creative actions with my players, I'm more likely to hear: "I jump off the cliff in order to ride the dragon" or "can I cut a tree down to make a bridge to those archers?" when there's no battle-mat.
|
|
When I first started dming, it was for white wolf games (WoD, WtF, etc), and I rarely if ever used a battlemat. It make combat more descriptive, but led to some weird moment whenever distance actually mattered, like any fight involving guns ('I move far enough away to shot him' or 'how long does it take to get to the snipers?'). Having the mat led to a degree of consistency that was hard for me to maintain with pure visualization.
A fun thing my group did the other night was use Warhammer 40k rules and a whiteboard instead of a grid for movement. For drawing the map, it helped to get away from trying to make things fit the grid, which made terrain a bit easier to draw out on the fly.
I don't care about battle grids as much as I care about a map -- any map! -- and I've felt that way for thirty years. I've wasted too much time in my life having conversations like:
"I go through the double doors."
"You can't, there's an ogre in the way."
"But I thought you said he was by the table on the west side of the room."
"He is, but the room is a funny shape. There's a little alcove off the north side..."
Etc., etc.
(I freely stipulate that not every group encounters problems like this. YMMV.)
It is really hard for me to play any sort of area tactic dependent RPG (like Pathfinder, D&D, Warhammer Universe games, etc.) without a mat. There are just too many variables for spells, charging, AoO, flanking, 5ft steps, etc. that making a GM/Players not only visualize the combat in their minds but also keep track of where everything and everyone is just creates too much of a hassle in my opinion.
I also run an 3ed L5R game with no movement speed, reach, distance, etc. that I can do without a map. It gives the players and myself a lot more freedom in what they want to do but the system its not as distance heavy as Pathfinder so we can get away with it. It does put a little bit more pressure on the GM to keep the battle visualized in their head but the players usually just ask " I want to place myself between my friend and the Oni" and the GM can go OK or you need to wait for your friend to move back so there is room.
Conclusion: If you and your players are capable of visualizing everything and keeping track of everything without a mat and do not wish to use one go ahead. If on the other hand you have 2 Area Effect blasters, and a Area control tripper with a reach weapon and just can't seem to keep it all in your head get a mat. Also there are tons of things out there that can make the mat even more appealing with 3D walls, stairs and other things that can make the game much more visually impacting.
I only use the battle map when there is lot going on and it's hard to keep track of. For less complex battle we tend to skip using the battle map. Personally I hate using battle maps, they take away from the game because you stop to move your pieces. You can get so much more descriptive with out the map.
I have played this game since the 70s. I've played the game without DICE.
If you have a group of well behaved, mature, responsible, cooperative players who don't mind when the GM says "nope he's got cover" and don't say "what? How?" then more power to you.
The modern game rules are wholly integrated with the battle grid. Areas of effect, lines of effect, cover, concealment, movement, all of that is specifically tied to the battle grid precisely because of all the problems with "what!? no way, I could totally fireball that lizard!" arguments.
So from a purely rules-based, mechanical perspective, you need the mat to definitively adjudicate disputes.
For those who say that moving pieces interferes with verisimilitude, all I can say is that I've got miniatures that I still use that I purchased back in the early 80s, if not the late 70s. So miniatures have always been a part of the game.
And for those who say the maps detract from immersion, I can only say you haven't seen my game maps. Or terrain. My players rave about how detailed and immersive my maps and terrain are. At least according to them, when they actually can climb UP the wizards tower to fight the wizard, that helps them visualize the tower and the surrounding terrain.
I'll just say there are battle maps and there are battle maps.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Back in High School, I used to DM with a little dry-erase board where I would put down a very basic sketch of a room and a few initials denoting the starting positions of the monsters and PCs. From there, we talked it out (occasionally drawing arrows when someone moved). It was sometimes a bit confusing, but it worked out well, and we didn't need a map or minis.
The main benefit of doing it this way is that you don't need a table in the way (or at least not a large table) so people can sit closer together and feel more connected.
Of course, nowadays, I use a map all the time.
I like drawing the maps, so i naturally tend towards using them. That being said, i echo a lot of the people on here in that If i don't need it i won't use it. for battles that are mostly filler or story driven ant not terribly tactics-heavy I'll just describe it, but for big events I like to give my players something to look at and plan with.
It's nice to watch their attitudes change when i whip out a map - they know that I'm not messing around when they see a carefully made battlemat.
Is it a little Meta? Sure, but I play with some people that are good at seperating their meta knowledge from play so it's all in good fun.
I don't see how adjudicating AoE's really is an issue without a battle map, unless there are problems remembering dimensions and locations (which I have done from time to time). A 30ft cone is a 30ft cone, regardless of how it's measured. The area remains the same size, I don't understand how grids change how it affects those in the target area. I may be missing something.
If everyone has the same mental picture of what the battlefield looks like, there's no problem. But when there's a difference in opinion as to which character is where and you get into a discussion like I quoted above, I find that very immersion-breaking. Much worse than having a picture to look at, for Pete's sake!
And I probably have a bad taste from the insistence of Wizards on battlemaps. I'm pretty ticked about a number of things (which I won`t rant on) so it would be like me to subconsciously avoid them because of that simmering indignation.
I can sympathize with disliking PCs who place fireballs precisely within a fraction of an inch.
And I do have a mature group that's great to run for. I wouldn't run for anything less, but I'm picky that way. :)
Hey, some groups run without using any rules or dice at all! To each his own.
Back in High School, I used to DM with a little dry-erase board where I would put down a very basic sketch of a room and a few initials denoting the starting positions of the monsters and PCs. From there, we talked it out (occasionally drawing arrows when someone moved). It was sometimes a bit confusing, but it worked out well, and we didn't need a map or minis.
The main benefit of doing it this way is that you don't need a table in the way (or at least not a large table) so people can sit closer together and feel more connected.
Of course, nowadays, I use a map all the time.
Okay, that is uncanny. This is exactly the same for my group. I still kind of miss the dry-erase board.
My group does not use maps or minis; haven't since we started with AD&D 2nd, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's all about immersion, descriptiveness, and, most importantly, trust in a flexible GM.
I have one group that plays once a week and another plays once a month, neither of which use grids, and we never have any issues.