Is it possible?
I've lately been listening to a lot of Shadowrun podcasts, and in one of them the following theory was brought up:
When using a map and miniatures, this becomes the "reality" in the heads of the players. They watch a battle from a bird's eyes view, with miniatures acting out the combat on a battlemat, or a computer screen. They don't actually "see" the battle.
Whereas when you simply describe the scene, with no map or anything at all, your mind fills in the blanks. It might not be the exact same scene for every player, but it comes more too life and immerses you more into the action. They are also more invested in it maybe, because they're part of shaping the scene, by asking questions about the environment.
I've thought about it, and have to admit, when I think about recent PF combat encounters and how I envision and remember them, then I see the map, and tokens moving about, not so much "the characters doing stuff". That too, but not nearly as much as the other.
So maybe there's something to it, I thought.
Earlier this week, I listened to another Shadowrun podcast, this time an Actual Play one, and the GM there was using mapless combat (I wouldn't have been able to see the map anyway, being a podcast, but still). He decribed the scene, he never went into terrible details on anything. Just something like "You follow the van through the dimly lit street in the Barrens (basically the worst part of town) and it crashes into a parked car, just as the troll street samurai jumps out and dives behind a mailbox for cover".
Still it brought the scene to life for me, I saw that troll jump out of the car, not a token of a car moving on the street colliding with another parked car token and then a token of a troll moving away from it. But more like a movie or a book, seeing the actual scene.
Now, I realize Shadowrun is not Pathfinder, but I was wondering... does it work with Pathfinder as well?
PF seems a lot more focused on combat, a lot more rules on movement, distances, angles of attacks and god knows what else. All those rules assume a battlemap is used.
Has anyone tried playing the game without maps?
How well does it work?
What doesn't work the same, and what doesn't work at all?
Do your players like it better? Or if you're a player, do you?
Does it change the way you prepare your sessions? (for GMs)
I am honestly caught a little off-guard that anyone would think of Pathfinder as being predominately map-based. If you started with the Beginner Box or with a war-game like Warhammer, I can understand making that assumption, but in my experience, maps are occasional luxuries for very specific locations and the vast majority of encounters and locations are described verbally. The fact of the matter is that there is no way to effectively play an RPG like Pathfinder while entirely relying on maps. The players will always poke their noses in a corner you didn't plan ahead for, no matter how many maps you drew out ahead of time.
So to answer the questions:
1.) Yes, almost everyone.
2.) Depends on the GM and players, but very well for the most part, because with verbal descriptions, the GM can describe the whole world in three dimensions instead of just two. It is very helpful for the GM to write a few sentences to describe any given location in general terms, ahead of time, in case the players ask. In most published adventures, these descriptions are provided and marked in a different font color, size or some other way to let the GM know what the description is for. These are extremely helpful.
3.) If the GM is not very good at describing things as they happen, it can be easy for players to lose track of where they are in relation to one another and the enemies, so even if you don't have a physical map, the GM must have a clear mental image of what's happening at all times. It is an acquired skill that does not come easily to everyone, but it's well worth the effort. Having no physical map means that the GM will also have to be more clear about what terrain is difficult, where those spots are, and whether or not players have clear line of sight or paths to pass through them.
4.) Never been a problem for my group, but I can't guarantee that it works for everyone.
5.) Yes. To give an example from my home-game: I have a town in my campaign that I designed from the ground up. Obviously, there is no professionally produced map of it, so I roughly designed my own. Not being an artist, my rough design is shaped kind of like a yam with multiple colored blotches to represent different districts, and I have specific buildings assigned to each district. I have the image in my head, but it's not good enough for my players to see and use. The town is about 58.2 acres, so it comes out to roughly 101,407 5ft. squares in Pathfinder. There is no way that I am going to ever map out each square. To even try would be madness, and that's not even getting into the surrounding lands stretching off into the distance. All I really need to do is keep track of where important locations are, and where important NPCs live. Having no strict map also means I can make stuff up on the spot without my players even knowing it. That gives me freedom to 'write' myself out of corners and respond to whatever my players do next.
It is more of an apples and oranges scenario. There are advantages to map, or non-map imagination.
Strengths of a map -
1 - No one is confused about how close or far anyone is, and ranges and line of sight become very important.
2 - Turns for summoned creatures, familiars, animal companions, NPCs, cohorts, and such are not as easily forgotten if they have a marker on the board.
3 - Area spells and attacks can become detrimental in a very physical representation (if you are beyond this square you are safe, if not - make your save roll).
Short of it - it solidifies what PCs can and can't do. The map controls the narrative.
Strengths of no map -
1 - Combat tends to go a lot faster (No setup, people tend to call out the same targets rather than measure distance with a tape measure to find who is in line of sight or other penalties / bonuses).
2 - More narrative strength as players and GM tell each how they envision things, avoiding dead times on a map sequence when opponents dance around each other for position.
3 - Flank attacks are stronger, as rogues tend to be able to "sneak past" narratively much easier than what a map would show.
Short of it - Speeds up play by making the narrative more abstract in nature.
Personal preference - For small encounters, or short skirmishes I prefer narrative no-map play to speed things along. For the epic "Final fight", or massive and potentially confusing battles I prefer to have a map ready.
Cuuniyevo, I'm not sure, maybe you misunderstood me, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your answer right now. Or a little bit of both.
I was talking about using maps during combat encounters. Not other situations, maybe I should have made that clearer.
So far all games I've been in have had some sort of map for the encounters, even if it's just a blank piece of paper with a grid on it. (which I'm counting as a "map" in this context, even if it's only a map of relative positions)
So honestly I'm caught a little off-guard by you saying almost everyone doesn't use maps, because that's absolutely not how I experienced the game so far.
I wouldn't expect anyone to map out every square of a city. That would be ludicrous. Especially because once you did it, the players would decide to either burn the city to the ground or leave it and never come back.
And if you enter a tavern, you don't need a map. I guess we can agree on that. Unless you want to start a fight, which is when the maps were pulled out, unless it was so ridiculously obvious that it wasn't needed. Like a drunken guy swinging at the half-orc and getting knocked out in the return attack.
So, that's what I was getting at in my OP. Can you play the game without using maps during combat, without running into tons of problems?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I grew up with 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D. With those, we basically never used a battle map. With 3rd Edition, we started without one but the rules kind of hem you into one. With Pathfinder, I find that it's quite difficult to handle combat within the rules system without a map.
The biggest problem is that so many bits of nuance are very specific to spots on a board - attacks of opportunity, soft cover, flanking, splash damage, bombs, etc.
Can you do it without running into tons of problems? Honestly, with Pathfinder, it's going to be difficult because so many of your niftly little abilities will depend on exact placement. You may want to switch to a different system if you want to do that. I do like the very simple Swords and Wizardry one as a change-of-pace: http://shop.d20pfsrd.com/products/swords-and-wizardry-complete-rulebook?sou rce_app=embed
Try running some simple encounters in "theater of the mind" sometime, it makes for a richer view of the battlefield, not less.
Yes, I agree they do. Which is the whole point why I WANT to do it.
I was just not sure if the PF rules really allow for it and if in the end I do myself and my players a disservice by skipping maps.
Seems most people here think it's possible.
Which I'm happy to hear, so thank you all. I'm gonna give it a try.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing the game without a Map creates a very different environment. Rogues become infinitely more powerful (although infinity*0 is still 0) because all you have to do is tell the GM "I flank the guy" which is WAY easier than actually trying to get into position. People will never worry about feather step or difficult terrain. They won't need improved precise shot, because all they need to do is say "I five foot step for a clear shot"
Personally I HATE playing without maps for battles. There are certain classes that have abilities that are completely negated by not having them. For example the Swashbuckler can move his full move without taking a -10 penalty to his acrobatics, without a map, everyone can just say "I acrobatics around him" you'll always consider yourself moving less than half your movement.
There's a lot of rules that covering moving in combat and positioning rules, and people have to spend resources to make those things easier. Without maps for combat, you completely negate the need for those things.
Playing the game without a Map creates a very different environment. Rogues become infinitely more powerful (although infinity*0 is still 0) because all you have to do is tell the GM "I flank the guy" which is WAY easier than actually trying to get into position. People will never worry about feather step or difficult terrain. They won't need improved precise shot, because all they need to do is say "I five foot step for a clear shot"
Personally I HATE playing without maps for battles. There are certain classes that have abilities that are completely negated by not having them. For example the Swashbuckler can move his full move without taking a -10 penalty to his acrobatics, without a map, everyone can just say "I acrobatics around him" you'll always consider yourself moving less than half your movement.
There's a lot of rules that covering moving in combat and positioning rules, and people have to spend resources to make those things easier. Without maps for combat, you completely negate the need for those things.
Your throwing out a lot of nevers. If you played in a mapless encounter, and your gm didnt give you obstacles and difficult terrain, I can see why the gaming experience was sub par. The GM wasn't very creative.
In my mapless encounters distance is still important, creature size is still important. Stealth and knowledge of the area are still very important.
Sorry, I could have been clearer that I was also addressing combat maps. Communicating on the internet can be tricky sometimes. =]
Of the last 6 combat encounters my party ran, only 2 had maps at all, and those were hastily sketched on a whiteboard. For the others, I described where things were and how far away everything was on the fly.
One of the situations with no map involved a scene in a basement with multiple opponents, multiple NPC's, rough terrain (crates and such piled up), stairwells, etc. Some of the players clambered around on the crates for tactical reasons, and when one of them attempted to run (in the dark with no darkvision), I had them roll Acrobatics (they rolled a 4) and they ended up falling as a barrel slipped from under them. A while later, they were all fighting on the stairwell. The stairwell was a bit cramped, so positioning was very important throughout. I won't say it wasn't a challenge to adjudicate and properly make sure everyone was aware of what they could and could not do, but it ended up being a lot of fun for all involved.
Another situation with no map ended up ranging from an inn through a street, alley, bridge, and eventually into the river below. If I had relied on a map, it may have unintentionally (subconsciously) restricted my players' freedom. If they see an edge of a map during an encounter, they think they're not allowed to go past that. As it was, the encounter felt much more dynamic.
On the other hand, I am also running through the Emerald Spire campaign and I really love the maps in that. They provide an immersion and 'cool' factor that is very appealing. Unfortunately, the maps show where the secret doors and such are. My players are also pretty adept at spotting level design techniques in regards to which rooms they should visit in which order. So while the maps are pretty, I've only been showing them to my players after they've already cleared most of that level in order to avoid the metagaming, and keep an air of mystery about the game. I did use a whiteboard and green marker to show them what they could see as they explored, and it is certainly satisfying to see the map slowly fill in before finally showing them the full image from the book. Thankfully, the book provides short descriptions of each level and room so it doesn't take much prep work to run.
Another example from that campaign: My players ended up going to the Citadel (a base of operations for a faction within the nearby fort) to explore. The book provided a layout of the town and the general shape of the Citadel, but no map and very little detail on the interior. I had to make it up as I went along, but I didn't write it down. Writing it down would make it fixed in place and prevent me from making modifications later. I think it's actually better for the story if I can suddenly plop down escape routes or unexpected guard posts as-needed.
Long story short, both methods are great. I love maps, and always have, but you can't rely on them for every encounter.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always use maps because of a bad experience with a GM that hated maps and minis. During that game, distance didn't matter, tactics didn't matter, chaacter placement didn't matter. We'd experience things like, "Roll initiative! Two orcs attack each of you." But wait! How far were they? Where did they come from? How come they just walked past the fighter and started attacking the wizard? How come the ranger couldn't shoot his bow?
Many times I've been confused about terrain - sometimes thinking we're in an open field or a forest with lots of trees, when actually were in a short clearing or even an area with tall grass. This is due to either a poor explanation or just me mishearing what the GM said. And we were never allowed to redo an action based on a misunderstanding of the area, so tactics were always against us and nearly impossible for us to do. How far away is the wizard that just dropped from the two orcs? We never know; we'd always have to ask the GM, who would then tell us that it was either one round, two rounds, half a round, with none or so many bad guys between (for AoO against us). Then we could move and suffer the consequences of trying to heal the wizard before he died; or just make the player roll up a new character.
Maps help reduce GM shenanigans and make the battle more fair from everyone's perspective. Maps give players a bit of an advantage by allowing them to incorporate better tactics and maps let everyone know the terrain so there is no confusion. Having minis forces the GM to use at least the same combat rules as everyone else and allows the players to witness GM actions to ensure the bad guys don't get to make double moves followed by an attack or even simple mistakes like moving 35 feet and attacking instead of 30 ft and attacking. In one PFS game I witnessed, the GM miscounted the number of spaces a bad guy moved; when I pointed this out, it prevented the bad guy from reaching a character and attacking. Since the attack would have killed the character, this witness of a simple mistake saved the character from dying. And considering it was the players first time playing pathfinder, it ended up making his pathfinder experience more enjoyable (rather than dying in the first battle).
With all that said, I am absolutely sure that a good and honest GM can do this perfectly fine without maps. But even honest people make mistakes, even good people can describe a scenario incorrectly (or a player misinterpret the scenario incorrectly) which can change the tactics of the battle - typically to the PCs detriment. In cases like these, a good GM will allow their players to backtrack a little and redo an action with the correct information. If you're the type of GM that won't allow this, then use maps and minis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With 5ft steps, flanking, spell templates and other parts of PF combat it tends to not work well without a map.
Some af the rules are one step too much towards wargame and away from pen and paper.
I often run into problems when I as a GM decide to run battles without maps. And I never had that problem before d20.
I always use maps because of a bad experience with a GM that hated maps and minis. During that game, distance didn't matter, tactics didn't matter, chaacter placement didn't matter. We'd experience things like, "Roll initiative! Two orcs attack each of you." But wait! How far were they? Where did they come from? How come they just walked past the fighter and started attacking the wizard? How come the ranger couldn't shoot his bow?
Many times I've been confused about terrain - sometimes thinking we're in an open field or a forest with lots of trees, when actually were in a short clearing or even an area with tall grass. This is due to either a poor explanation or just me mishearing what the GM said. And we were never allowed to redo an action based on a misunderstanding of the area, so tactics were always against us and nearly impossible for us to do. How far away is the wizard that just dropped from the two orcs? We never know; we'd always have to ask the GM, who would then tell us that it was either one round, two rounds, half a round, with none or so many bad guys between (for AoO against us). Then we could move and suffer the consequences of trying to heal the wizard before he died; or just make the player roll up a new character.
Maps help reduce GM shenanigans and make the battle more fair from everyone's perspective. Maps give players a bit of an advantage by allowing them to incorporate better tactics and maps let everyone know the terrain so there is no confusion. Having minis forces the GM to use at least the same combat rules as everyone else and allows the players to witness GM actions to ensure the bad guys don't get to make double moves followed by an attack or even simple mistakes like moving 35 feet and attacking instead of 30 ft and attacking. In one PFS game I witnessed, the GM miscounted the number of spaces a bad guy moved; when I pointed this out, it prevented the bad guy from reaching a character and attacking. Since the attack would have killed the character, this witness of a...
That gm was just a really bad gm. After the first game I wouldnt play with him ever again.
Ok, that sounds like a bad experience with a GM, bookrat. I don't think as a GM I have a "me vs. them" mindset, more of a "I want everyone to have fun". (I mean if I resort to cheating to kill my players... what's the point, I can achieve that without cheating if I wanted)
I'm also a big fan of "What you can do, I can do" and everyone playing by the same rules.
I played way way back with 1st and 2nd Ed D&D without maps, my current group played 3rd Ed D&D without maps as well, slowly though with Pathfinder we started to use Roll20 for all our mapping and now every combat encounter is done on a map.
Hero Lab and Roll20 totally changed how we play roleplay games.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer maps - I hate having to start my turn with 20 questions: "How far am I from the wall?" "Can I see the troll from where I'm standing?" "Can I hit all three enemies with a Color Spray?" Etc. etc. etc.
I like already knowing what I'm going to do before my turn starts. I find that next to impossible without a map.
I prefer maps - I hate having to start my turn with 20 questions: "How far am I from the wall?" "Can I see the troll from where I'm standing?" "Can I hit all three enemies with a Color Spray?" Etc. etc. etc.
I like already knowing what I'm going to do before my turn starts. I find that next to impossible without a map.
That is the either the fault of the gm not being descriptive enough or its your first turn in the emcounter, after that it should be smooth sailing.
I always use maps because of a bad experience with a GM that hated maps and minis.
I had a similar experience with a GM who loved them. When the map was laid out the monsters would always be within charge distance, regardless of how things had been described, partly because the battle map was not large and he disliked scales other than 5'/square. Terrain monsters charged across would be difficult terrain for the characters. He required extra rolls to place area effects which would barely miss PCs, or which caught the maximum number of enemies. I'm fairly certain monsters would gain/change feats spontaneously to avoid mobility problems for them.
The problem in both our cases is the GM I think, not the presence or absence of maps.
I always use maps because of a bad experience with a GM that hated maps and minis.I had a similar experience with a GM who loved them. When the map was laid out the monsters would always be within charge distance, regardless of how things had been described, partly because the battle map was not large and he disliked scales other than 5'/square. Terrain monsters charged across would be difficult terrain for the characters. He required extra rolls to place area effects which would barely miss PCs, or which caught the maximum number of enemies. I'm fairly certain monsters would gain/change feats spontaneously to avoid mobility problems for them.
The problem in both our cases is the GM I think, not the presence or absence of maps.
Applauds
You don't need a map when an encounter doesn't have much variance in terrain. You just need to keep track of who is engaged with who in melee.
I alternate between using maps and not using maps, despite running all of my games on a virtual tabletop.
I really like using a map. Before pathfinder, all I had ever played was rifts (and the teenage mutant ninja turtles variant). The lack of things like attacks of opportunity, flanking, reach weapons, cover, movement speed, etc. really made for one dimensional combat. Having things like arrow slits, corners, pillars, rough terrain, etc. all give you a lot of options for how to control the flow of combat. An archer, for instance, can take up shooting from behind a fallen tree trunk to make it difficult for enemies to get to him. Without a map, not only is the importance of a fallen tree reduced, but a gnome in full-plate moves the same speed as an armorless half-orc barbarian because you have no gauge of distance.
A lot of new GMs tend to be really light on descriptions, and they tend to make maps that are boring. You end up fighting a lot of encounters in big square rooms with nothing of particular interest in them. If you give players a description of the area instead of just saying "you enter a big square room", you can make use of a map and still have all of the imagined setting you want. And if your GM is experienced, he can add a lot of stuff that offers mechanical advantages to the players with a map.
I always use maps because of a bad experience with a GM that hated maps and minis.I had a similar experience with a GM who loved them. When the map was laid out the monsters would always be within charge distance, regardless of how things had been described, partly because the battle map was not large and he disliked scales other than 5'/square. Terrain monsters charged across would be difficult terrain for the characters. He required extra rolls to place area effects which would barely miss PCs, or which caught the maximum number of enemies. I'm fairly certain monsters would gain/change feats spontaneously to avoid mobility problems for them.
The problem in both our cases is the GM I think, not the presence or absence of maps.
At least with a map, I can audit my GMs moves. I can call shenanigans on bad plays. Without a map, it's all in my GMs head; something I can't see.
Having played lots of AD&D and 2nd edition prior to my 3rd, 3.5, and PFRPG times, I can say that the absolute of a battle-mat is very, very good. As a DM/GM, it can add to the "mind's eye" by giving all players a similar and realistic view of what is happening.
Does it detract from the narrative? I don't think so.
Does it change storytelling elements? Sure...if you let it.
In the end, only what generates the most fun really matters.
If you embrace it as a tool, I think you will be fine. If you grudgingly accept it as "the rules," you may have different results.
I hope this helps.
Abyssian
Playing the game without a Map creates a very different environment. Rogues become infinitely more powerful (although infinity*0 is still 0) because all you have to do is tell the GM "I flank the guy" which is WAY easier than actually trying to get into position. People will never worry about feather step or difficult terrain. They won't need improved precise shot, because all they need to do is say "I five foot step for a clear shot"
Personally I HATE playing without maps for battles. There are certain classes that have abilities that are completely negated by not having them. For example the Swashbuckler can move his full move without taking a -10 penalty to his acrobatics, without a map, everyone can just say "I acrobatics around him" you'll always consider yourself moving less than half your movement.
There's a lot of rules that covering moving in combat and positioning rules, and people have to spend resources to make those things easier. Without maps for combat, you completely negate the need for those things.
Nothing is negated when you don't use a map. That would the gm hand waving things. You don't ignore the rules just because you aren't using 1' square grid map and miniatures. Like I said a GM can handwave the rules but they can do that on grid map too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In many RPGs you only really need to know how far away something is. In some cases, all you need is close or far. These work excellently for mapless games, and often maps are a detriment.
Pathfinder is heavy on positional tactics. Discrete range in 5' increments is important, but so is position in that range. Concern with charge lanes, attacks of opportunity, flanking, and similar mechanics means having an positional reference of every creature and thing on the battlefield is necessary to fully evaluate a tactical situation and use ones abilities.
It is possible to do this without a map. For encounters with more than one or two bad guys in more than a fairly featureless space this usually requires more information than a GM can quickly impart, and means a whole lot of question may need to be asked each turn. This can dramatically slow combat, and break the immersion even more than a top down view of a map.
Alternatively, it is possible to hand-wave and approximate many of the factors that make detailed battlefield knowledge important. This can work, but sometimes what a GM sees in his mind won't match what a player sees, leading to disagreements and dissatisfaction.
So basically, the Pathfinder/d20 system isn't ideal for mapless combat. It is possible to do it, but the disadvantages of doing so outweigh the advantages in many cases, and particularly for those people who like Pathfinder because of its tactical granularity, which is one of the features many people do indeed enjoy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like maps because I have a bad short term memory and no sense of distance. I'd pretty much never know what I'm doing on my turn without something to quickly reference for tactics while I'm waiting. This is both as a player and a GM, if I were to try and GM without using a map in combat situations then I'd be contradicting myself almost every round.
After many years of no maps for 1E and 2E, I switched to requiring maps for 3E, 3.5, and 4E. These last few editions (like Pathfinder) have a lot of rules and class features that convinced me maps were indispensible. In fact, 4E probably has a greater reliance on maps than 3E/PF.
Then I ran some playtests of 5E, without maps as per the playtest instructions, and rediscovered the joy of being able to start a combat without saying "Take 5 everyone while I sketch this out..."
Now I'm running a 4E campaign (Mummy's Mask) and for the most part, I'm not using maps for combat. Instead, I'm giving a narrative description of the area and the combatants, and as folks move around, I try to clarify how they're positioned in relation to area features and allies and foes. When there's doubt about where people are and whether they can use class features, I try to err on the side of the PCs. Sometimes I go ahead and use a map for a particularly intricate area - but the further I get, the less often it seems necessary or useful.
There've been some rough spots. None of us are in the habit of describing and visualizing clearly after 10+ years of relying on maps. But the game is also going much faster - I'm completing an Adventure Path chapter in about a month of real time (it took more like 3 months when using maps). Part of the time savings is a smaller group, but a lot of it is the time we save by eliminating the drawing of maps and the counting of squares to plan PC movement or to place spell effects.
And I do still frequently dig out minis (or more often these days, Pawns) to give the visual idea of the foes, and their size relative to the PCs. I just don't orient them on a map.
So I encourage you to give it a go. As long as the GM and players are all willing to help each other and play cooperatively, it can really speed up game play and make the game's story (as opposed to the tactical exercise) much more memorable.
Having played lots of AD&D and 2nd edition prior to my 3rd, 3.5, and PFRPG times, I can say that the absolute of a battle-mat is very, very good. As a DM/GM, it can add to the "mind's eye" by giving all players a similar and realistic view of what is happening.
Does it detract from the narrative? I don't think so.
Does it change storytelling elements? Sure...if you let it.
In the end, only what generates the most fun really matters.
If you embrace it as a tool, I think you will be fine. If you grudgingly accept it as "the rules," you may have different results.
I hope this helps.
Abyssian
I find the battle map is problem due to setting it up before each encounter. It slows the game down a lot. At the same time we've had some great fun after a 1/2 setting up and drawing the battle map out for an interest 3 hour battle of epic proportions. Nothing worse though that setting up a battle map 1 round fight where to you 10 minutes to draw it out. Easier not to use the map there.
Last year I finished as GM a Pathfinder campaign taking the players from level one to level twenty. Was not an AP, but homebred plot. I used parts of APs and a couple of the paizo modules as they fit at different points.
Not a single battle was fought on a grid or using minis.
And there were a lot of battles. Some completely in the sky, some on ships some in dungeons etc.
It can work, been doing it without maps and minis since the early '80s.
Just like using maps and minis you have to make an effort to do it and make it happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played AD&D for decades with very little use of a map without a problem. However, once starting Pathfinder and using maps for combat, I absolutely love it. It makes everything very simple in my mind because the terrain, players and opponents are all clearly laid out. It makes using the terrain to your advantage in combat fun.
My monk likes to do goofy things like leaping up on stuff to get around the map or jumping here or there for a strategic advantage. I love it. It brings back the old feel of playing a hack and slash board game like Dungeon back in the day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that PF ideally works with maps, at least in regards to combat. Knowing who is adjacent and who is not, reach capabilities of weapons, distance for ranged attacks all matter and must be addressed when resolving combat. Though you hardly need more than a whiteboard with a grid scaled to your miniatures or tokens.
In 1e/2e days, I remember games run without a map, and they worked, but I still prefer using a map - its easier to resolve combat
That said, I'm a cartographer and maps mean a lot for me, and the creation of maps is my favorite thing to do, next to play using one. I find creating encounter scale maps the highlight of game prep, and I happen to be someone who loves game prep, almost as much as running a game.
If you need various maps of castles, temples, towns, etc., you can visit my G+ page (this is ideal for virtual tabletop, though the maps are large enough to be printed.) There is a lot of variety, but most are generic - not specific to any module.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got quite a bit of experience running mapless in Vampire, as well as some in 3.5; PF I play pretty much exclusively with a map.
I do believe that the map tends to colour people's perceptions. It's indeed a lot more third-person than first-person, so to speak.
That said, mapless isn't perfect either, for two main reasons.
1) You lose a lot of tactical depth. The game is crammed with tactical options and choices that are deeply tied to the grid. Big monsters using reach, rogues trying to dance into flanking positions, area attack spells that you manage to just target without hitting any allies.
These things still exist when going mapless of course, but they become very subjective, subject to GM whimsy instead of clever player maneuvering. As a player, it becomes much harder to achieve the "gotcha!" moment when you've outmaneuvered an enemy and get to lord it over him.
2) It's easy for the players and the GM to become confused about who and what is actually where; where landscape features are, who's ganging up on who and so forth. I personally find it very hard to translate the description given by GMs into an idea of what the area is like, and generally by round three I'm totally lost on who's where. So my tactics degenerate into "I move up to it and hit it" or "I shoot at it from a distance, making sure not to get to close or stray away too far".
Note that you can fix a lot of this by making a quick sketch on a piece of paper; not a fullscale map, certainly not something with grid or such. But just a quick sketch to show where the gate is compared to the tree compared to the bottomless pit.
---
I do like mapless combat, but generally in more rules-light systems than Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing without a map can be done, but not everyone can do it. I have a hard time remembering where everyone. Some use minis but no maps. Some can gauge distance well without square but I can't do that either. Other posters here have said they have no probem with it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back when we played a hybrid 2/3rd ed campaign one of the problems was "teleporting bear syndrome", where enemies tended to cross from just being spotted to melee almost instantly, making archers look quite stupid.
Also, a lot of people tended to say things such as "he's two rounds away", but that doesn't make a lot of sense if every ranged weapon has a different range increment, and every PC happens to have a different movement speed.
It gets even more confusing if people aren't just moving in straight lines towards each other; if people are moving to the right or left, or trying to circle around. I find it very hard to keep track of the position of 3+ moving objects relative to each other.
In the 3.5 campaign I play I compensate that by just not trying to do any particularly clever maneuvering; I play an archer with enough tumbling to get out of melee if necessary. I just shoot at people and may or may not have to deal with cover. There's much less tactical depth, but the combat is a bit more immersive, that's true.
I have played in a Kingmaker campaign and a Jade Regent campaign and homebrewed campaigns in the past. Both the AP´s had a very good GM who could tell things greatly and were real fun. However, like mentioned above, there were many, many misunderstandings on who is where, can flank, area affects, triggering things etc, which led to many discussions and a lot of time lost. Attacks of Opportunity were houseruled out except for having combat reflexes, but that was also lost in between. The focus was more on a storytelling game.
So in my experience, due to miscommunication, people forgetting things (including the GM) it´s almost always better to have a visual representation somehow. Doesn´t need to be a battlemap.
Especially true for beginners to learn to understand the tactical side.
Of course if you´re fine with handwaving all that, it´s different.
For a pure storytelling game though, there might be better systems as Pathfinder. Else houserules etc need some experience.
For Pathfinder Society i´m just going to point out this:
Miniature: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game uses a
standard 1-inch grid to determine movement and tactical
positioning in combat. Accordingly, you need a way to
represent your character on the grid. The first few times
you play, it’s perfectly acceptable to use whatever you
have on hand—a coin, a spare die, and so on—but as you
become more involved in the campaign, you should bring
a gaming miniature to represent your character each time
you play. In affiliation with its business partners Reaper
Miniatures and WizKids, Paizo provides a wide variety of
official unpainted metal and pre-painted plastic gaming
miniatures you can choose from.
I think Map vs. Mapless depends on how much time you have to dedicate to the game. Our game night almost always lasts just 3 hours.
Our GM LOVES to narrate. If he was left to describe the sights and sounds of the building we were in, it would take a long time. Sure, it would be interesting, but we probably wouldn't get much done. However, having a map takes less time. In fact, in Rune Lords, there is a certain burned mansion that he went to a lot of care to make blown up pictures of. The mansion (each level) is to the scale of our minis.
I will say that we have tried to move through a situation without a map but found the need of a map because we needed to know the exact position of each character (was the Bard in range of everyone for Inspire courage, who was where when the fireball went off, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the strength of the GM and their preference.
For a while, I was so intimately familiar with the rules, the game world I created, and generating a strong narrative, I literally just lounged on the couch coming up with s$+* as they played along, occasionally faking rolls. I'm damn good at improvising everything, not so good at sitting down and trying to cope with drawing a dungeon like a four year old.
As far as combat went, a narrative GM should never be mapless, just perhaps without the talent or time to actually draw them out in full. The map should be in your head, and at the start of every players' turn, you should be describing their position, hinderances in terrain (walls, penalties), and relative distances to one another. If taking a five foot step would cause an archer to still risk shooting an ally in the head, you need to take this into consideration and warn the player ahead of time that this would not be an advantageous maneuver. Furthermore, if the rogue wants to flank, you have to mentally visualize the path and warn about AoO's that they may normally draw.
The important thing is that you should be able to, at a moments notice draw it all out for everyone if they feel things are too complex. It is important for the players to be able to trust you to maintain the combat field and relay to them the hazards and consequences of what they physically cannot see.
It isn't something I advise for new GM's. World building is a bit of a skill, and it helps to physically build a couple before you start winging it. I've seen bad experiences happen when novice GM's take the field with just the book and their imagination.
If you do opt for narrative, remember it's a lot harder to avoid breaking what is my number one rule: Never let the players know when, how, or why you're cheating as a GM.
I do this constantly(mapless combat). Usually I do it by feel. If a combat is complex enough where I think a map would benefit I bust out the map. Sometimes I will just use dice or figures to represent relative distance and position. Sometimes I will draw lots of stuff and include props or whatever. Usually I try to do as little of this as possible as it gets annoying. Play it by feel, and meet the expectations of your players. If everyone is cool without a map, I say ditch it entirely. I've played for weeks straight without ever drawing a map - but you have to be good at describing stuff. I happen to have a knack for it, and rarely feel like I need maps.
I do not use maps, and no DM that I've played under has.
My problem with map/mini style play is that it takes the players out of their character and engages chessmaster mode. Battle is supposed to be chaotic, and those in a battle operate on limited information by necessity. A battle where all participants have a complete view of the field and their enemy positions at all times is extremely unintuitive.
Besides, I house ruled away most of the fiddly bits involved in movement anyway, it made for a more cinematic combat experience.
If someone likes maps, that's fine for them. They're not for me, and the game is quite playable without them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer maps - I hate having to start my turn with 20 questions: "How far am I from the wall?" "Can I see the troll from where I'm standing?" "Can I hit all three enemies with a Color Spray?" Etc. etc. etc.
I like already knowing what I'm going to do before my turn starts. I find that next to impossible without a map.
Exactly. In my experience, "playing without a map" is really "playing with a map that only exists in the GM's head and the players have to guess what it looks like". Sometimes it works fine, other times it's confusing.
For myself, I at least like to have a quick sketch of what the battlefield looks like. Tokens are definitely optional, though.
|
|
Can you play with out them? Yes.
Do you want to? Up to you. Try it for a few combats and see how it works for you and your group.
I am another that has played since 1E. Never used a battle map until 3E came along. I don't remember ever having an issue pre 3E, but then again some of the mechanics of 3E work best when used in conjunction with a map IMO.
I stopped making a map for some encounters (generally short and quick ones) and initially got some backlash from my group for it. Now that we have done it semi-regularly no one has an issue as it helps speed up play.
We will always use a map in more complex situations.
One thing I learned from playing games through message boards was to use consistent adjectives to help describe distances.
Adjacent: next to or within 5' step distance.
Close: > Adjacent up to 1 move action
Near: > Close up to double move
Medium: > Near, generally up to a couple hundred feet
Far: > Medium.
I prefer maps - I hate having to start my turn with 20 questions: "How far am I from the wall?" "Can I see the troll from where I'm standing?" "Can I hit all three enemies with a Color Spray?" Etc. etc. etc.
I like already knowing what I'm going to do before my turn starts. I find that next to impossible without a map.
Exactly. In my experience, "playing without a map" is really "playing with a map that only exists in the GM's head and the players have to guess what it looks like". Sometimes it works fine, other times it's confusing.
For myself, I at least like to have a quick sketch of what the battlefield looks like. Tokens are definitely optional, though.
That´s what i think too. It just makes communication easier and saves up a lot of gametime that is otherwise spend with talking about who stands where etc and then discussing misunderstandings.
Of course there is a bit more prep time, but having the finished maps in PFS and AP´s etc, or using flipmats (a blank flipmat with a crude drawing takes 1 minute) makes that very fast and easy too.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not use maps, and no DM that I've played under has.
My problem with map/mini style play is that it takes the players out of their character and engages chessmaster mode. Battle is supposed to be chaotic, and those in a battle operate on limited information by necessity. A battle where all participants have a complete view of the field and their enemy positions at all times is extremely unintuitive.
Besides, I house ruled away most of the fiddly bits involved in movement anyway, it made for a more cinematic combat experience.
If someone likes maps, that's fine for them. They're not for me, and the game is quite playable without them.
I tend to find that not using a map takes me out of character much more than using one. With a map, I at least get a bit of visual sense of what my character is experiencing. Without a map, I am conditionally deaf and blind, with only a disembodied voice to explain my surroundings to me.