| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly possible and some group do exactly that. Though I would guess them to be in the minority.
How well does it work? A lot of it depends upon the precision of the GM and the ability of the players to listen carefully.
Note: Imagination was no where in that sentence.
I was with a group once that played this way. The GM used rich flavorful descriptions that were quite evocative. It really wasn't too bad.
But in one scene a 'low wall' would be a decorative garden divider that provided concealment but no cover if lying down behind it. In another scene a 'low wall' was a 6 foot tall stone barrier surrounding the homes of the wealthy.
Sometimes he would say left or right and meant from the point of view of our PC's. Sometimes he meant from the point of view of the opposition. A few times it was even from the point of view of the page in the module which didn't match the perception of any of the PC's or NPC's.
Fairly often someone would try to charge, shoot a bow, or cast a spell but then we would unexpectedly be told there is X in the way. Wait what? If I knew that was there I wouldn't have headed that direction. Well that's were you said you were heading, so no you can't shoot until you move again. So my character runs to the left and draws his bow aiming at the wall of the barn that I didn't notice?!?
A little of that is actually ok with me when you consider the vagaries and confusion of combat situations. But in complicated scenes it sometimes seemed more Three Stooge-ish rather than heroic.
Occasionally the entire group seemed confused on what was going on and where, so one of use would try to draw out what we got from the descriptions. We were never very close to what the GM meant.
After the module was completed, the GM let me look it over. Most of what was in the module was not very close to what I thought it was. On the other hand, I have to admit, the differences in what I thought the setup looked like really didn't have much influence on the results in too many cases.
The rest of the group was used to it and ok with it, but I honestly found it kinda jarring. It really did not help my immersion. But the rest of the group really seemed to like it much better.
I also quickly noticed that certain types of builds were non-existent in their group. No builds that relied on heavily AoE spells, attacks of opportunity, mounted charging, flanking, tripping, etc... The different perceptions on who, what, and where would have made those type of builds very difficult to run in a combat. They mostly used single target martials and single target spells (or spells that just say allies or enemies).
| 2 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.
Scythia - I'm going to make some assumptions about the way your group plays based on what you've said. No offense is intended, and if I get anything wrong, by all means correct me.
To the OP: This is really where it's at. How does your group play, and what's important to you/them? It sounds like in Scythia's game, the story is the most important thing, and combats are just things that may happen during the story. Their group has taken out a lot of things that make combat more complicated so they don't get bogged down in it to get on with the story.
I don't play that way, and that would drive me nuts. I like the tactical side of Pathfinder, the problem-solving side of things. Don't get me wrong, I like a good story, but it's not the most important part of the game to me. One example of a scenario I love, is when the GM says "Okay, the bad guys are going to attack the town, how are you going to defend it with the resources you have?". That scenario could come from a story as simple as "the orcs want your land" or a totally complex convoluted epic story line, and I'm just as happy either way. I like resource management. I like having to decide am I going to go for mobility or damage? If I decide I want to move around the battle field better, say with Feather-Step Slippers, that means I have to sacrifice combat effectiveness but not talking Boots of Speed. Without maps, you lose that. Everyone essentially gets Feather-Step Slippers (Everyone please understand that the Feather-Step slippers/Boots of Speed, is just an example and not the entire basis of my argument. It's meant to represent what I'm talking about not be the sum of my entire point).
Let me clarify that I'm not saying one way is better than the other, they are just different ways of playing, and it's up to your group to decide which way is better for them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played from 1st Ed to now and through a deluge of different systems it's both for me. Sometimes a map is great, sometimes it's not needed. As I'm currently playing both Pathfinder and Shadowrun Quatars post struck a note, we use maps in both games sometimes and sometimes we do without, it's the fight that decides mostly.
A highly complicated environment with lots of tactical options, difficult lines of sight, many combatants and so on? We'll probably map it out and use figures, it makes things a lot simpler to keep track of and doesn't surprise players with things they should have been able to be aware of. A more simple combat or one with few involved, open terrain, etc? Probably just narratively described.
Both work well, in both cases I think most of us envision the fight in our heads equally, we just have a better idea of what to envision when things get complicated if we use a map.
In the past I've played in games of various systems that always or never used maps, as many have noted it tends to be the GM that matters more than the use/lack of maps, maps are just another tool that the GM has to help tell the story, sometimes that tool is the right one for the job, other times you'll need a different tool. A good GM knows which tool to use for each situation.
I can't imagine (much) combat being run without a map. Especially not a higher levels, and especially not with multiple enemies. With single enemies I think it's doable, but as evocation spells with lines and bursts and multiple enemies start populating the field I think it gets to be too much to keep track of mentally. As a GM, I'm also not that great at describing things but using the map from the AP helps to easily convey the setting. I have however run combats with single enemies without maps, or in a "combat" where the PCs are significantly more powerful. An example of which was Skull and Shackles and boarding other ships. At a certain point we were so significantly more powerful than 90% of ships that winning was a forgone conclusion. It was a really a question of what resources we expended to achieve that end, which was usually nothing vey significant (because we'd kill the pilot and the captain and ask for the rest of the crew's surender with the guarantee of not being killed).
For non-combat encounters I don't think a map is at all necessary and wouldn't dream of using it. So depending on how combat heavy your campaign is you could get away with barely needing it.
Looking at Suthainn's post above, I pretty much agree with what he has to say.
| 3 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.
By "house ruling away most of the fiddly bits involved in movement" you're changing the game in a way to make a map less necessary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that if that's how you and your group want to play, but it is different from Pathfinder as written in the book; if you need to write out most of the tactical mechanics of the game in order to make playing without a map manageable, that just goes to show that for those who do play as written then a map really is necessary.
Same as many above: I came from D&D 1 and am now doing Pathfinder, and find that I benefit from having a battle map due to how mechanics-heavy PF is. It is easier for everyone to know who is where, next to what, and where their exits are, how far to the closest foe, etc.
Not necessary, just easier.
The problem I have with mapless is, if the DM apparently has this map in his head, remembers all the positions of every combatant/terrain piece and can judge distances on abilities and weapons in his mind...
Just draw a map and he doesn't have to. Unless you are making it all up off the top of your head, then being 'confined' to the grid isn't even a drawback. You were working with those distances and charge lanes and AoOs in your head right?
I don't get why you would take the visual representation away from your players and make more work for yourself if you could just draw it out...
I personally find that a map of some kind is necessary to play PF. I also feel, based on the few times I've played the earlier editions, that even in early D&D having some kind of visual representation is extremely helpful, even if not 100% required by the rules. I have bent that position occasionally when I have DM'ed pbp games where the scenes are both straight forward and short (as trying to do maps in a pbp is often a time consuming process for even the most basic of maps), but for the most part, having a visual aid of where characters and notable objects are in relation to each other brings more to the experience than it takes away.
I think a large part of the difficulty that has developed is that many have come to expect fully drawn maps on mats that have the squares preprinted to allow for precise measurement regardless of the scope of the encounter. This isn't always necessary, and can quickly bog the game down if it's seen as a requirement for every single combat. The scenes that require more detail can usually be anticipated and prepared for ahead of time; maps being created in the middle of a session simply need to provide enough of the basic information required to keep the scene moving forward without getting bogged down. The key to me is getting a basic layout where everyone can see it; the details and specifics can be done verbally in most cases without needing to visually represent every little aspect of the battlefield.
Seems like peoples experiences really flavours their feelings on this matter. Like many others I have been playing since 1ed Ad&d, and I find that maps are great. Arguments about who exactly is where, and mysteriously teleporting 10'-20' monsters/players, and rogues NEVER getting backstab (as was), and any one of a hundred other problems not having a map brings really break immersion a lot more than a map ever will.
This is one where experimenting with your players may be the only way to truly know what will work for you.
One alternative is for the players to draw the map based on the DM's descriptions. In the case of dungeons or cities they're new to, they shouldn't have access to layout maps and such.
Not everyone has access to combat maps and the like, but the cheapest solution is graph paper on some corkboard with tumbtacks as markers.
This does require either very strong improvisational skills or good map preparation skills in the GM to sketch out a combat scene in full on the spot (including difficult/impassable terrain, details like tables/chairs, high/low ground, and cover). It also requires them to track their players for things such as threatened space/AoO's, take their movement distance into consideration, etc.
Again, for a mapless DM, they should describe any impediments or considerations in the environment for all players, including distance, terrain/obstacles, potential cover, or dimensional limitations that would hamper such things as flanking. This is a LOT easier if the DM has the layout drawn up in advance (DM has a map, just not one for the players/combat)
Mapless goes faster for simple/small encounters, hazards, and traps where the constraints are simply explained, such as fighting in a 10ft wide hallway by torchlight.
Complex or larger areas will require mapping or a large amount of handwaving on the part of the DM, and I highly advise maintaining a 'wilderness library' of maps for random encounters for overland combat. Offroad areas are highly unpredictable even in the simplest and most level terrains. Even in open plains, there are going to be gopher holes.
I try to avoid large amounts of combat because one challenging combat can often take an hour or two to resolve, and there are quicker ways of challenging players and moving on with a game than slogging through turns and attack rolls. This makes combat prep a lot easier.
A bad mapless game is just an attack roll simulator. A good mapless game is no different than a mapped one, sans props.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're playing mapless, I'll be floudering about confused about where the enemies are in relation to the doors and the PCs. Given how appallingly bad I am at understanding area descriptions, I simply have to insist on at least a 10-second sketch of the area. Otherwise I'll simply NOT be able to imagine the scene.
If we're playing gridless, I want advance warning because I won't be playing a character whose abilities depend on the grid, like:
- Any kind of battlefield control caster, since you'll constantly be fighting about the size and shape of area control effects with regard to the scene/
- Any kind of area attack character, like a fireball-wizard or an alchemist. The fuzziness about whether multiple enemies can be hit, or whether PCs can be avoided, will just suck the fun out of it.
- Melee warrior types that try to do something "clever" like using reach attacks to control the area around them, herd enemies, try tricky teamwork to do pincer moves on the enemy and so forth.
- Any build that relies on having a better movement rate than enemies, to outmaneuver them.
- Any build that relies on sneaking around to gain a tactically advantageous position. Because distance to threats plays a major role in that, and with my issues with understanding descriptions, it just won't work.
The list is probably longer than that. Simply said, I'll feel like the only things I can play that will just work are things like:
- Simple melee characters that just walk up to an enemy and hit it hard.
- Tanky characters.
- Archers specced to ignore all forms of cover so that it really doesn't matter where me or the enemy is in relation to any other terrain feature.
- Single-target spell/hex casting that doesn't involve attack rolls.
I think that's a rather boring subset of the richness of the game. The funny thing is, in a game like Vampire the Masquerade, going gridless doesn't cause nearly as much trouble. There, most powers don't have such fine-grained ranges. Something is either grappling range, touch/melee range, line of sight, or "anyone in the same encounter".
It's got some tactical depth; not as much as Pathfinder. However, its tactical depth isn't tied so closely to a precise distance system. I expect it's the same for many other RPGs.
If we're playing gridless, I want advance warning because I won't be playing a character whose abilities depend on the grid, like:
- Any kind of battlefield control caster, since you'll constantly be fighting about the size and shape of area control effects with regard to the scene/
- Any kind of area attack character, like a fireball-wizard or an alchemist. The fuzziness about whether multiple enemies can be hit, or whether PCs can be avoided, will just suck the fun out of it.
- Melee warrior types that try to do something "clever" like using reach attacks to control the area around them, herd enemies, try tricky teamwork to do pincer moves on the enemy and so forth.
- Any build that relies on having a better movement rate than enemies, to outmaneuver them.
- Any build that relies on sneaking around to gain a tactically advantageous position. Because distance to threats plays a major role in that, and with my issues with understanding descriptions, it just won't work.
The list is probably longer than that. Simply said, I'll feel like the only things I can play that will just work are things like:
- Simple melee characters that just walk up to an enemy and hit it hard.
- Tanky characters.
- Archers specced to ignore all forms of cover so that it really doesn't matter where me or the enemy is in relation to any other terrain feature.
- Single-target spell/hex casting that doesn't involve attack rolls.
That I would have to disagree on. There are a lot of scenes you don't need a grid for, and the ones that do need it are usually set scenes that can be prepared ahead of time. Grids are nice and helpful, but knowing exactly where one five foot square ends and the next begins is not an absolute requirement even for PF. As long as the sketch is reasonably consistent in the scale used, you can still make rough estimates that work 95% of the time. The grid just helps by making such calculations easier; it's not required.
|
|
@sunshadow: I think there's a feedback between the actual characters people play and the rules. If the rules don't support AoO melee builds, you're not going to see them. And then because you don't see those builds you don't miss the grid.
Does a given scene need a grid? That depends on the characters. If someone built a character around polearms and Combat Patrol, every significant combat needs a grid.
If the player built a greatsword warrior who just power-attacks as hard as he can, he doesn't need the grid all that much. In fact, against bigger enemies, going gridless might work to his advantage because the monsters get less AoOs.
@sunshadow: I think there's a feedback between the actual characters people play and the rules. If the rules don't support AoO melee builds, you're not going to see them. And then because you don't see those builds you don't miss the grid.
Does a given scene need a grid? That depends on the characters. If someone built a character around polearms and Combat Patrol, every significant combat needs a grid.
If the player built a greatsword warrior who just power-attacks as hard as he can, he doesn't need the grid all that much. In fact, against bigger enemies, going gridless might work to his advantage because the monsters get less AoOs.
I disagree. Every combat map/sketch in PF needs scale to make accurate measurements off of. Scale is not the same as a literal grid. Using a grid is just one way of establishing scale. Using a grid also tends to take more time to draw out. If the DM wants to sketch a quick encounter that will only last two, maybe three, rounds, the gains in time and story tension are going to be worth the lack of absolute precision all of the time to most people after a while as long as they can still make accurate enough estimates of where everything is. It will mean that one trick ponies that rely on 100% precision all of the time won't be seen, but those wouldn't last very long in any campaign I would be running or playing in anyway. AoO melee builds or AoE magic users are still perfectly playable as long as there is some kind of scale that can be used to make highly accurate estimates, players leave room in the build to allow for some inevitable corner cases (which would occur even if grids are being used all the time), and communication occurs between the players and the DM to address specific concerns. Also, 5' sqaures aren't always the scale I'm looking for as a DM; sometimes a scene requires a different scale to really have maximum impact. It helps me greatly when my players are capable of thinking tactically without always worrying about 100% precision of the scale and measurements being used.
A little flexibility and solid communication on both sides of the screen goes a long ways in letting players use all the tactics the rules provide while still keeping combat from bogging down a game because everyone is busy micromanaging every little detail of every single battle. Even most builds that rely on measurements can get by with an accuracy of 90% or better for most routine combats. It's only the really big battles where everyone is pulling out all the stops because significant campaign storylines are in play that 100% accuracy becomes important, and those can be prepared with a clear grid ahead of time without detracting from the flow of the game. In the end, I've found that a grid is nice, and occasionally necessary for big or complex battles, but the lack of a grid for simpler and/or smaller battles does not hurt the game much, as it produces gains in time and story tension that outmatch the usually slight loss in accuracy of measurements.
|
I've run and played combats both with and without a map. I find the maps never hurt my ability to visualize a scene, and for more complex scenes they help.
IIRC, the climactic encounter of my last campaign was mapless, and it did include cover and a black tentacles spell. However, it was also a fairly regular environment, architecturally - a big open chapel with columns and balconies around the edges and an altar centered on the far wall.
Last month I was a player in a session that featured a number of concealed traps on the battleground. Precise movement on that map was very important in determining whether we'd tripped a snare or stepped onto a covered pit. If I were the GM, I would not have trusted my mental picture to cover that scene.
I do not notice any difference in vividness of visualizing mapped vs unmapped combats. In the former, I can "remember" the prone BBEG fending off the barbarian's assault while the wizard ducks behind a column and picks off the BBEG's support. In the latter, I saw clearly my character straining to climb out of a pit as it filled with yellow gas. We used to play with legos for minis and while I remember the look of some of my favourite characters' legos I certainly don't remember their battles as a bunch of lego figures running around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@sunshadow: I think there's a feedback between the actual characters people play and the rules.
At the very least, I find there's a feedback between having a map and making interesting moves.
In a game with a map, I'm more likely to say "I take THIS ROUTE to go to THIS PLACE and attack THIS ENEMY". In a game without a map, I'm much more likely to say "I attack whichever enemy is close to me and injured" (which I could probably keep repeating mindlessly until the fight is over while surfing the internet on my smartphone, if I had a smartphone).
At the very least, I find there's a feedback between having a map and making interesting moves.
In a game with a map, I'm more likely to say "I take THIS ROUTE to go to THIS PLACE and attack THIS ENEMY". In a game without a map, I'm much more likely to say "I attack whichever enemy is close to me and injured" (which I could probably keep repeating mindlessly until the fight is over while surfing the internet on my smartphone, if I had a smartphone).
Which is one reason why I do think having a visual map is important for all but the simplest of scenes, even if the rules don't explicitly require one. The only part I tend to challenge is the need for a specific grid all the time.
I've not played with a map for years. I used to, but I couldn't afford the different figures, and didn't have the inclination to make them.
Now it's almost the same story-- I never have the time to write out a full adventure, so most combat encounters are just a list of enemies I wrote down in a few minutes (probably even during the session). The whole tactical layout is made up on the fly.
I still use cover, concealment, difficult terrain and that sort of thing, but we generally use a more narrative approach to combat. I've found describing exact distances and terrain features slows down the game too much.
From time to time we use a simple sketch if I make a complex dungeon layout (something I've avoided doing since we went mapless), and there's the occasional discussion, but combat goes well enough that I wouldn't think of going back to using maps regularly.
I think I'd argue that if you want to play map-less, you should at least clear it with the players first. You may also be better served by trying a game less tied to the grid.
I have never used a map in Pathfinder.
In AD&D I didn't use a map.
In 2e, I didn't use a map.
In 3e I bought a whiteboard and used that for when it was important for working out the situation, but it's always sketches and blobs and never a grid.
I'm still using that same whiteboard to this day. I have played with a map and a grid, and to be honest I don't really like it. It turns the game into far more of a board/war game than I like in my RPGs.
I mean, you don't really need to have a grid to figure out things like "if you charge someone with a reach weapon they get an AoO" or "we put the wall of fire between them and us".
Depends on the players. If someone made a phalanx soldier with a reach weapon hoping to get AoO's, a mapless system hurts them quite a bit.
Compared to a wizard though, it's quite easy to figure out buffing or blasting and asking who is in range.
I think a GM with a map behind the screen can work to make sure not everything is being made up, but some builds will need to see maps more than others.
YMMV
The only RPG where I think using a map would be necessary is the Pokemon Tabletop Adventures/United, just to deal with the number of enemies present and dealing with ranges.
The only RPG where I think using a map would be necessary is the Pokemon Tabletop Adventures/United, just to deal with the number of enemies present and dealing with ranges.
Personally, I think 4E came pretty darn close.
|
|
I've games both with and without map a lot. In PF I prefer the map mostly because it makes determining cover much clearer. Good usage of cover allows people to close in on bigger monsters with reach without AoOs, which is quite valuable.
I absolutely detest playing without even a single sketch, because I'm just bad at spatially visualizing someone's descriptions. I cannot keep track of say, four moving objects (PCs/enemies) and their relations to each other, without a picture. Taking directions from people is really hard for me. If someone insists on not even making a sketch, then to me the combat is essentially taking place in a featureless white room where I'll never know beforehand if someone is close enough to engage.
Playing a ninja has fully convinced me that at least a grid is necessary. Taking a good possition for flanking, a strategic battlefield placement to allow me to take a 5' step instead of a move action to attack an enemy after other enemy has been killed, a good place to make some AoO and so on is the difference between my character killing an enemy on a single turn and doing a pathetic amount of damage.
Depending on a blurry description and GM fiat to know when I'm getting flanking or a full attack action bothers me.
It's different saying «I take an strategic possition that allows me both flanking and reaching other enemies easily» (to which the GM can just answer «you can't» without giving a reason) from just pointing which possition you take on a grid and see if you can do those things or you can't.
I'd never play a rogue-like character without a grid, because in my experience GMs are usually too restrictive or too permissive when allowing flanking, sneak attacks, 5' steps and so on.
I know it's not only the rogue-like character who is affected but most characters, but I realized it when playing the ninja. Before, I didn't relied on grids and maps as much as I do now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran our group's latest session without a map, but we've historically always used a map.
We had a discussion afterwards, and it seems the group preferred the map - but there were pros and cons for both.
I told them "if you want to flank, just tell me that's what you want to do and we'll work it in". I started the combat with very little preamble other than that.
What we found:
Combat was WAY faster, there was less analysis paralysis. Our group tends to ponder moves quite a lot and taking the map out of the equation made it a lot faster & simpler.
There was very little sense of the shape of the battlefield: I told them that they were approaching an medium sized inn, and the enemy appeared and dropped down from the roof-top. This comes down to me not being used to needing to describe the battlefield: I can usually draw it, and additional context usually arises out of that.
Since neither me nor the party thought about formations, area control/positioning went completely out the window: we didn't really define it as the combat started, and thus when I attacked one character, he seemed a bit disappointed that I could do so when he'd have liked to hide behind the front-liner barbarian. We can put this down to both myself and the group not being familiar with running things like this, but it's worth noting that it denied the party an option they would normally have taken advantage of.
So:
If either GM/PCs like to use positioning, flanking, or area denial: map-less could be a bit difficult to cope with keeping track of things, and the more reliant you are on such things, the more of a hassle it will be to shoe-horn it into the more abstract style.
It works both ways: if you want to circumvent area denial (ie have a monster hit someone that is being guarded by someone else) it becomes more difficult to achieve, short of just provoking and running with that.
However: if you want to run a combat fast for whatever reason (near the end of a session perhaps?) it might actually be a good way to rapid-fire your way through. Also, if your group does suffer from analysis paralysis, it might be a good way to explore faster paced action.
I think it will also open up more options as far as "rule of cool", but that will depend much more on your ability to describe the scene of the combat at the beginning, so that people feel more able to make use of the environment you present them with.
On the flip-side: if you have a group that wants to have a more tactical experience, or if you are running an area-control tank, or a mage that likes to land his template spells just right, maybe consider trying a map.
I suspect most groups will have a preference one way or the other: but I think there are lessons to be learned from both styles of play.
One is looser, faster, but potentially more interesting and atmospheric if you take some extra time to set the scene.
The other is more tactical/strategic, and allows more forethought and planning for the party: it also allows both sides to make positioning mistakes, perhaps opening things up that might not have otherwise occurred without a map.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I spent nearly a decade roleplaying without maps. At some point, my friends and I made the switch and have been playing with maps for just over another decade. We can't imagine going back now. Though our games do take longer, there is far less confusion.
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.)
Killing your players is a sure way to end up without any, and though people do roleplay in prison, I doubt they'd want to roleplay with a GM known to have murdered all of his players. Certain prisoners might be willing to roleplay in other ways though...
I've run games with a Grid Map and miniatures. It's more work for the GM, you need to be more descriptive of combat and distances. You need to get the players to tell you what they want to do.
It works find it often better. The combats get more descriptive vs a move movement of miniatures or pawn on grid map. As play you focus more on the description and get really feel for the dungeon. I find miniature distract from the game.
It doesn't work well for player vs GM games.
We use a mix of everything in my group, usualy depending on the gravity of the situation.
Casual skirmish - no map
Proper fight - no map / quick sketch / I keep distances noted for reach/AoOs
Serious fight - sketched map / drawn before map
Boss battles and scenario battles - drawn before map
Our reason to use maps is mostly to calculate reach and AoOs when there are a lot of enemies and allies. We use graph paper, the simplest with the small squares and eventually 1x1cm when pre drawing something nice. We prefer mapless except for large important battles.
No miniatures. Ever.
From my experience when I've drawn out some really awesome several sheet maps in colours (Im good at drawing and do them while I watch a series or something), they dont stay in them. A map inmediately makes you think what is beyond it. With some planning and good map skills (relevant objectives stay within the drawn part etc) I have learnt to make them a lot better, and it is very rewarding.
I find how people remember the fight is completely different. Mapless has generally made people more imaginative with their surroundings and participative.
Kileanna, we run with a house rule that makes flanking easier (for enemies and allies both). The GM tells you what happens when you flank, whether you will provoke etc.
In general, mapless requires better GM skills, some learning curve and very rewarding when it works for me.
My use, or lack thereof, of maps depends mostly on 2 things:
1) The skill level of my players. With veteran players I tend to skip the maps, due to the player's better understanding of the rules and how positioning, terrain, etc works. With newer players I use maps in every encounter - at least at first. This gets them used to developing the aforementioned understanding until eventually they no longer need the maps as a crutch.
2)The size of the encounter. For encounters with 10 or fewer total combatants (including the PC's) I tend to skip the map, but with larger encounters I always use them, mostly for my benefit instead of the players - As I get older, the memory sometimes isn't up to par.
I dislike doing away with maps in their entirety. It tends to negate things like move speed, tactical movement, and effective tactical usage of terrain and positioning.
What I have enjoyed on occasion is dispensing with the grid, laying down some terrain and using a tape measure.
<--- spent way too much time playing tabletop wargames.
|
|
When you have a party where everyone has a different movement speed, I wouldn't call a map a "crutch". More like vital life support.
I think there's game mechanics that are unsustainable without a map, such as strongly differentiated movement speeds. Doesn't mean maps are good - you might decide you like mapless play so much that you'd rather insist on reducing the amount of different available movement speeds instead.
But I don't consider the map a "crutch" that you can dispense with without side effects on which mechanics and builds still work.
EDIT: replaced grid with map. You could do a lot of things on a gridless map with measuring tape and still keep the vast majority of PF mechanics working.
Do you seriously keep track of distances and movement rates between each player and NPC? Seems to me that having an increased or reduced movement rate would likely get hand-waved away most of the time.
Only when the enemies are few, such as 2 large enemies. When dealing with multiple enemies it wont work, no, then you need a grid.
|
I generally decide on a campaign-by-campaign basis, then only mix things up if a particular encounter really needs or doesn't need a map.
But both work fine in my experience. I tend to prefer maps when characters have abilities that hook into flanking and avoid them for more atmospheric (read: horror or fairytale) games.
Yeah, I don't see how you reliably account for a party with 20', 30', and 40' move characters. Heck, in my last game we had 20' gnome/dwarf, 30' half-orc, 50' Desna cleric + longstider, 60' flying wizard.
How do mapless GMs handle this? I'm honestly curious.
From the posts in this thread, the answer is apparently houseruling all of it out.
A bit deraily, but still in what was mentioned about when using maps and movement speeds:
Has anyone tried reducing global speed by an amount? Say everyone moves 10 feet less per move action.
Need to be careful of solutions in search of a problem. Why would you do that? What are you fixing?
|
sure can be done, though I prefer to have even a simple map like a blank one where the gm perhaps place a few rocks or whatever as objects.
I often get inspiration to what i can do with my actions based on the objects i see around my player.
Without any known and being given freeroaming to what there is makes it much harder for me to decide upon a plan.
Same way as seeing 30 img and then getting questions afterwards being told what did i see gives bad results like 9/30 where being shown a selection of images and being asked which one was among the 30 i just saw should see me at 29-30/30
When we play without maps, we still use the distance rules... Why would speed rules be altered just because there is no physical map?