|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a recent interview, when asked about Theater of the Mind play, Paizo's Logan Bonner commented:
I'd say it's about on par with PF1E in that regard. We haven't playtested TotM style because that tends to be less common among our fanbase. I should give it a shot so we can know what to expect for that style of game. My guess is that it would be easier for me personally to visualize what was happening when using three-action turns, but I'm not entirely sure! If you end up playtesting in this style, I'd be really interested to hear how your experience goes.
That's a very problematic answer because it's essentially—to paraphrase—"TotM players are less common in the fanbase so it isn't a priority." Which is equivalent to saying "<Group/ demographic of players> are less common in the fanbase so they aren't a priority."
Isn't a better response to find out why TotM is a minority of the fanbase, what could be done to make the game accessible to them and how to make the changes without impacting the game negatively fans of minis.
The largest fan survey of the d20 industry available to the public was done a couple years ago, by Mike "Sly Flourish" Shea, and found here.
Based on the results of that survey, 19% of fans prefer abstract maps (no grids) and 18% prefer theater of the mind. That's a full fifth of the potential audience that doesn't like using minis.
Miniatures are problematic. They place imits where you can play to places where you can reach minis. And they're a barrier to entry: you can play with PDFs and the PDSRD, but you still need to get tokens of some kind. (And it's not like there's a PC/ Heroes pawn set. The best alternative literally has "nonplayer" in its name.)
Plus, mini-less games make for easier listening, enabling streaming of games. Pathfinder has fallen far behind in that regard, as streaming is an amazing tool for learning how to play an RPG as well as free advertising for game systems.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minis suck. Playing with a battle mat sucks.
But I think the published systems are now all going to use them. Setting aside the fact that so many (how 'bout that 80% number) gamers have spent TONS of money on minis that can be used regardless of system -- the rules mechanics of the d20 system are completely ingrained in using a mat. From areas of effect to five-foot-steps to vast numbers of Feats -- it's all crap -- but it requires a mat.
I agree with you, and I don't use a mat or minis when I DM, but the game has been irrevocably changed for the people who can't muster the imagination or attention span to play without a grid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder sells maps sets and AP maps... I seems a winning strategy to attract more people that will buy more of their products that attempt to cater to ones that are going to buy less. As such, I can understand it hasn't been a priority.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a very problematic answer because it's essentially—to paraphrase—"TotM players are less common in the fanbase so it isn't a priority." Which is equivalent to saying "<Group/ demographic of players> are less common in the fanbase so they aren't a priority."
lololol — ya found The Real Racists. What dastardly bigotry hath been displayed.
C'mon. Be serious.
On that more serious note, I'm not a totm style player—I love Pathfinder as a tactical game, which is what it is at heart, and I love the grid—, but I do think it will be interesting to hear playtest feedback from folks who do enjoy less tactical play. I wonder how the Playtest rules will compare to PF1 in that regard.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder will never appeal to all players equally. Enabling Theatre of the Mind requires a degree of simplicity to the rules and a lessening of tactical options. 5e tries to straddle both playstyles and I don't think it does it well.
Sometimes a game should decide on what it wants to specialise in and specialise in that playstyle. It results in a better game for those appealed to that playstyle and these days there are no shortage of RPGs that cater to those who don't want battlemats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And they're a barrier to entry: you can play with PDFs and the PDSRD, but you still need to get tokens of some kind.
Barrier to entry? Nonsense. The first year or so, we got by with various coins marked with tape and sharpies.
Did you know that a Canadian Twoonie fits nicely in a 10 x 10 square?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For literal years my group got by with a game mat that we all pitched in on and beer bottle caps with numbers and letters written on them with Sharpies for "minis", glass stones for tokens, and any lid we could find for bigger enemies.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder will never appeal to all players equally. Enabling Theatre of the Mind requires a degree of simplicity to the rules and a lessening of tactical options. 5e tries to straddle both playstyles and I don't think it does it well.
Sometimes a game should decide on what it wants to specialise in and specialise in that playstyle. It results in a better game for those appealed to that playstyle and these days there are no shortage of RPGs that cater to those who don't want battlemats.
I would agree. It's better to do one thing and do it well rather than try to be all things to all people and do it poorly.
THAT SAID, the general simplification of the rules in PF2 should make TotM easier compared to PF1. And TotM could even be a whole chapter in the inevitable Game-Mastery Guide, guidelines for adjusting the game.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a very problematic answer because it's essentially—to paraphrase—"TotM players are less common in the fanbase so it isn't a priority." Which is equivalent to saying "<Group/ demographic of players> are less common in the fanbase so they aren't a priority."
This is a PROFOUND stretch and frankly kind of uncharitable given the work Paizo has done to make real world minority groups welcome and give them representation in their game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, mini-less games make for easier listening, enabling streaming of games. Pathfinder has fallen far behind in that regard, as streaming is an amazing tool for learning how to play an RPG as well as free advertising for game...
You know Critical Role, by leaps and bounds the most popular Actual Play stream and the one that popularized Actual Play overall, uses minis, right?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't a better response to find out why TotM is a minority of the fanbase, what could be done to make the game accessible to them and how to make the changes without impacting the game negatively fans of minis.
It depends. Paizo has finite resources. Spending those resources on a significant minority of the playerbase may be less productive overall than spending those resources on other aspects of the game.
Miniatures are problematic.
I'm going to gently stop you right there.
I mean this with the deepest respect to the chosen playstyles of other groups, but I have another description for "Theater of the Mind" which I don't mean dismissively, but I think encapsulates my main response... "Mother, May I?"
There isn't an argument that follows "minis are a problem" that isn't orders of magnitude smaller in my eyes than the problems with Mother, May I?
With minis, there is virtually never a question of if an ability can work or can't work. A character that has move 30 either can, or cannot reach their opponent and attack in one round, and that decision is made fairly and objectively by a consistent, "real" physicality. It doesn't come down to asking the DM "can I do this?"
It doesn't matter what issues you might find with minis. In a game that carefully denotes the difference between 1d6 weapons and 1d8 weapons, that bothers to include a feat that grants an extra 5ft of movement, that has a tonne of spells whose range increases in 5ft increments every 2 levels, distance matters.
Abstracting that is a valid playstyle. But there are game systems that encourage and support that playstyle. This one isn't that game style. This is a game system that is designed for precision. That's one of its strengths, for the market its designed for.
They place imits where you can play to places where you can reach minis. And they're a barrier to entry: you can play with PDFs and the PDSRD, but you still need to get tokens of some kind. (And it's not like there's a PC/ Heroes pawn set. The best alternative literally has "nonplayer" in its name.)
My group started with pennies with circles of paper taped on top with numbers 1-12. Total barrier to entry: $0.12
Plus, mini-less games make for easier listening, enabling streaming of games. Pathfinder has fallen far behind in that regard, as streaming is an amazing tool for learning how to play an RPG as well as free advertising for game systems.
Huge stretch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back when I was shorter and dumber, we used ripped up pieces of paper for our minis and graph paper for our mats.
But those blew around whenever anyone breathed, so it wasn't long before we took to just writing down initials for characters and creatures on the graph and erasing them whenever someone moved.
Ate through erasers, though.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play and run Pathfinder almost exclusively in the Theater of the Mind.Right on, do you implement any special mechanics, guidelines, things like areas (close, far) or some such? 5th Ed has a good one for AoE spells/effects. I enjoy TotM (as well as maps/mins/tokens/measuring), and am always looking out for good ways to wield it.
Not really. I just keep a rough idea of the terrain and the organization of the players and enemies and go with what feels right and fair.
People often ask things like "Can I move to flank him with the Dwarf?" or "How many people can I hit with color spray?" and I answer depending on what seems to make sense and be fair (often things like "Yes, but you'll need to provoke an AoO to do that in one move from where you are." or "Two, if you take a move action to position yourself right.").
The same more or less holds true when I'm a player and someone else is GMing as well, though obviously then I'm the one asking the questions rather than answering them. :)
Based on my experiences with actual maps, I suspect this is usually a little more permissive than the actual map rules often are (since if something seems like it should work, movement-wise, then it does), but not by more than a square or two here and there.
It generally works out fine if the players trust the GM to both be fair and keep at least decent track of things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use to focus a lot on battle maps (no minis), since I like strategic play and I like to draw maps before play. However, as time passes, I prefer Theatre. I found battlemaps have players focus too much on them, on squares and take away from surroundings.
A map as a reference from time to time for context is great, but I keep a rough sketch where I note positions related to each other and GM from that. We've grown into it as a group.
I would still appreciate maps and even buy separate maps. However, I am more interested in the surroundings, details in terrain that can spark the imagination of players to use things outside of their stat block, rather than "this is 7 squares away".
|
|
Yeah, my experience with TotM (was in 3.5 rather than PF) is that it actually allows more flexibility and less clumsiness.
I think the three action system will do a lot of good for TotM play, but sadly I don't see that group anymore so I likely won't find out for some time.
EDIT: @Errant Mercenary - Yeah, my experience is the same. Players actually observe and interact with the surroundings much more using TotM than they do with battlemaps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed that the 3 action system is going to be wonderful for mapless play. You will be able to assign a number of actions to however the players want to manipulate their surroundings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I switch between TotM and the grid pretty fluidly. Some fights really lend themselves to using a map, while others it simply isn't worth drawing one out. If an AP has a cool map with lots of specific features, I like to draw it out or show players the picture. I also have had a lot of fun figuring out how to represent weird maps. I built a 3D map for a chemical factory once, using cans of beans to represent vats and popsicle sticks representing walk ways running between them.
But if the encounter is a bunch of spaced out archers posted in trees, the map doesn't add much.
Personally, I switch between TotM and the grid pretty fluidly. Some fights really lend themselves to using a map, while others it simply isn't worth drawing one out. If an AP has a cool map with lots of specific features, I like to draw it out or show players the picture. I also have had a lot of fun figuring out how to represent weird maps. I built a 3D map for a chemical factory once, using cans of beans to represent vats and popsicle sticks representing walk ways running between them.
But if the encounter is a bunch of spaced out archers posted in trees, the map doesn't add much.
I was like "Theater of the Mind?" Oh...that's how we play. No minis no maps.
I could see using both, but probably won't switch to maps and minis...I'm too lazy for all that.
I could see using a map for a particular event, but in general, I tend to agree with the OP, you mind can't do two things at once. Either it's imagining the scene or figuring logistics on the map. Less questions with a map I guess. We do use pictures at times though, maybe a quick map to give an overview?
Does using a map lead to less creative thinking?
Ah, either way, we'll keep TOTMing it, I just wing the rest if a map is really needed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minis suck. Playing with a battle mat sucks.
But I think the published systems are now all going to use them. Setting aside the fact that so many (how 'bout that 80% number) gamers have spent TONS of money on minis that can be used regardless of system -- the rules mechanics of the d20 system are completely ingrained in using a mat. From areas of effect to five-foot-steps to vast numbers of Feats -- it's all crap -- but it requires a mat.
I agree with you, and I don't use a mat or minis when I DM, but the game has been irrevocably changed for the people who can't muster the imagination or attention span to play without a grid.
Thats singularly derogatory. was it necessary?
I like battlemats and minis as they enhance the game for me, and eliminate some probelms I experienced when playing without them - disagreements about where people are relative to each other mostly.
I neither lack imagination nor a reasonable span of attention - I susect that is true of many who use minis and mats.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you give this amazing description of some epically powerful creature, let's say a Demon Lord, Titan or some such, and then you put down this apologetic piece of plastic or metal.
...and you can't use your imagination to picture that apologetic piece of plastic as a great demon lord...hmmm!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without being dismissive of other playstyles than your own, like...
Minis suck. Playing with a battle mat sucks.
But I think the published systems are now all going to use them. Setting aside the fact that so many (how 'bout that 80% number) gamers have spent TONS of money on minis that can be used regardless of system -- the rules mechanics of the d20 system are completely ingrained in using a mat. From areas of effect to five-foot-steps to vast numbers of Feats -- it's all crap -- but it requires a mat.
I agree with you, and I don't use a mat or minis when I DM, but the game has been irrevocably changed for the people who can't muster the imagination or attention span to play without a grid.
I think PF can be adapted very easily to "theatre of the mind"-style games. All it takes is a little flexibility on everyone's part, especially the DM's, so that he doesn't spend all his time saying "no you can't do that, because (of tactical reasons)." Of course, the DM has to be far more thorough in describing the setting, where obstacles are, where adversaries are, how various obstacles interract and so on. And everybody has to keep track of their relative positions, and range to various enemies, from contact to close (less than one move away) to medium (a full charge move away) to far range (you can barely see them), and you use a generous fudge factor on things like spell ranges and missile ranges, always judging in favor of the PCs.
I played exclusively "theatre of the mind"-style games in the 70s and 80s, and see no problem with playing either PF1.0 or PF2.0 in that style. Sure, you lose some degree of granularity of tactics, and you no longer differentiate between the guy who can move 20' per action and the guy who can move 25' or 30' per action, and you have to keep an open mind. But it's not a problem.
These days I have a huge miniature collection, tons of Dwarven Forge pieces and lots of home-made terrain. So I really like using miniatures. But even now, some sequences remain in "theatre of the mind", just because it doesn't seem worthwhile to set up the entire terrain setting for a give scene, for whatever reason.
I've played 99% TotM all the way through 3.5 and Pathfinder, and I see no reason why that would stop now. If there's anything in the playtest that doesn't work with that style of play, I haven't seen it yet.
Not even once have i ever stopped to play PF without the grid and its markers.
Played plenty of other systems that dont use this, but PF to me is one that is meant to be played per the rules to the detail.
Personally i dont see the need for one system to cover evetyhing. Even more because chances are it will fail to do so well enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've spent most of my two decades of gaming doing TotM-style gaming, and I'm just gonna come out and say it: Grids and tokens/minis/whatever is flatly superior for D&D/PF gaming.
"Mother, May I?" as described above, is absolutely right! People don't like finding out that 30ft of movement really isn't as far as they thought, or that no, if we're being honest the Fireball spell won't actually hit everyone you want it to.
Too many "sure, that's fine" GMs out there.
And I can tell you from plenty of personal experience that, everyone at the table might be watching the TotM, but not everyone is playing the same show. What you're imagining may not be quite what your fellow player(s) imagine, or even worse, what the GM is imagining, because some detail was left out or misunderstood or goes unheard or any number of reasons why miscommunication happens.
That never happens with a map/grid and tokens/minis.
And contrary to what others may tell you, you don't miss out on the "detail" when using physical representation. It's a very weak imagination that gets lost in the grids so badly that they can't imagine the terrain or fearsomeness of the creatures.
Grid 1/TotM 0
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Propaganda; Chainmail is not D&D. D&D was designed to get away from Chainmail, that is all.
As an old grognard who played Chainmail before D&D, and then D&D when it came out, I have to chime in and call out this statement as patently false. D&D was based on Chainmail, and often refered back to the Chainmail rules, and it was really an extension of Chainmail not "designed to get away from" it.
As far as the use of miniatures is concerned, Bluenose is right on the money with that. But that still doesn't really fit in an argument over the relative merits of using miniatures vs theatre of the mind.
I don't believe that, but I understand what you're trying to do, the motivation....it seems the more money people have invested in plastic crack, the more vehement they are against TotM. As if threatened, just play what you dig, but don't lie due to a perceived threat.
There's no point in slamming one approach or the other, both are valid, enjoyable ways to play our favorite hobby. Refering to miniatures as "plastic crack" is simply offensive.
Theatre of the Mind-style games require more abstraction, and a fudge-factor regarding distances, ranges and areas of effect. Grid-based games offer greater granularity of precision, sure, but that doesn't mean they are superior in any way. Different styles, both enjoyable, both worthwhile.
And both easily playable with PF rules, PF1.0 or the new playtest when it comes out. The same sorts of abstractions will work equally well with both rulesets.
Plus, mini-less games make for easier listening, enabling streaming of games. Pathfinder has fallen far behind in that regard, as streaming is an amazing tool for learning how to play an RPG as well as free advertising for game...You know Critical Role, by leaps and bounds the most popular Actual Play stream and the one that popularized Actual Play overall, uses minis, right?
Also, the majority of ToTM players in my recent experience are largely using D&D 5th edition or older D&Ds, or non-F20 games entirely, for their games of choice. I don’t think Paizo gains much by making enough concessions necessary to promote ToTM at the expense of focusing on grid-style.
That said, both groups I play in (one for D&D5, and one for PF1) use grid combat and minis, because of our play preference.
...
And contrary to what others may tell you, you don't miss out on the "detail" when using physical representation. It's a very weak imagination that gets lost in the grids so badly that they can't imagine the terrain or fearsomeness of the creatures.
Grid 1/TotM 0
You're missing the point. It's not about weak or strong imagination, it is about how it is directed. There is a difference about how people interact with surroundings depending on how you are playing.
Even with different types of grids/maps you can see this. A white square paper with people writing in pencil their movements vs a coloured map full of intricate details of the environment. "Hey..is that a chandelier, can I use it to swing?" is something that a painted map can provide but not a white paper/TotM unless it is explicitely said. It also saves time.
A similar proccess but not map related: I draw decently, specially sketches of characters. After a few sessions and the players have a handle on their character I'll often do a few sketches. This helps direct and get everyone on the same page about how they look (so long as the player is happy with it). It is a similar form of how the mind operates, from a purely described concept to a token sketch to a full depiction.
I personally prefer a grid with a well painted map and little tokens to simulate entities. I do not like minis (way too static for me and I do get tired of Orc Number 3). However I have shifted to TotM because obviously it works better with my group as they dont care as much as I do for wargaming or they get those kicks from somewhere else.
|
|
That's a very problematic answer because it's essentially—to paraphrase—"TotM players are less common in the fanbase so it isn't a priority." Which is equivalent to saying "<Group/ demographic of players> are less common in the fanbase so they aren't a priority."lololol — ya found The Real Racists. What dastardly bigotry hath been displayed .
That's a big logical leap.
I wasn't implying racists. I was saying that whenever a group doesn't predominantly play you game, you need to ask why.This is a PROFOUND stretch and frankly kind of uncharitable given the work Paizo has done to make real world minority groups welcome and give them representation in their game.
That's a very problematic answer because it's essentially—to paraphrase—"TotM players are less common in the fanbase so it isn't a priority." Which is equivalent to saying "<Group/ demographic of players> are less common in the fanbase so they aren't a priority."
Right.
So why exclude the maybe 40% of gamers who like theater of the mind?Plus, mini-less games make for easier listening, enabling streaming of games. Pathfinder has fallen far behind in that regard, as streaming is an amazing tool for learning how to play an RPG as well as free advertising for game...You know Critical Role, by leaps and bounds the most popular Actual Play stream and the one that popularized Actual Play overall, uses minis, right?
And Mercer is very good at making the events of the story unfold for the audience without them having to clearly see the battlemap. Because, you can't. Not clearly anyway.
And that show has the advantage of a budget (and a DM with money) that allows for big, fancy props and Dwarven Forge.For a Pathfinder streaming starting out... not so much.
|
|
Here's the thing: new gamers won't live in big houses with large tables. Kids and students might be playing around couches or in a dorm room. Not a lot of table space for a map and minis.
Sure, TotM might not be for you. That's fine. But I'm not saying we get rid of your minis. I'm not saying that we eliminate grid maps. Nothing should *really* change for miniature fans.
The point is designing the rules and presenting them in a way that does not inherently assume miniatures and a battlemap. If the only way certain rules make sense is if you NEED to have a diagram of a battlemap with minis, then maybe things have gotten too fiddly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
JD, you're not wrong.
I got into D&D playing in my high school library. Playing on a picnic bench at the park. Playing in a corner of a friend's living room or basement, with as little of a "footprint" as possible so as not to draw attention or disapproval from parents or passers-by.
Having a few notes or even sidebars about using the PF2.0 rules with Theatre of the Mind-style games would be a great step forward. The kinds of abstractions and approximations it necessitates shouldn't be seen as incompatible with the level of precision that grid-based games require. It's all well and good to have templates for areas of effect and specific foot-based ranges for all sorts of things, from spells to missile fire to perception checks. But acknowledgement should be made that such niggling precision is not *necessary* to play the game.
Having PF2.0 be more theatre of the mind-friendly, at least in the way it is presented, and with helpful suggestions for DMs and players leaning that way would be a very positive thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
in this modern day and age you don't *need* a big house with big tables to use a grid. Anything from MSPaint to Roll20 can do it digitally, all you need is one or two computers. Theater of the Mind can be great sometimes, but building a system around it means you can't have the tactical positioning rules that you can have with minis because, simply put, there's no concrete positioning. GM says an enemy is "close", that could be anywhere from melee range to 30 feet. Enemy's "far away", is that 30 feet, 100 feet, the moon? "There's three guys engaged with player X", are they in reach of a 25 foot cone? Without hitting X? Are they flanking X? Can I get into flanking with X in a single movement? With a single move can I get to a position to cleave off of them? Can I cleave with flanking with the right movement?" All of this stuff is simply determined with grids, and arguably is pretty important to grid-based tactics, but to try to get the same results off TotM you've gotta run 20 questions with the GM pretty much every round. Which will dramatically slow down the gameplay. But frankly, I'm not willing to sacrifice the tactical depth just because a fraction of the gamerbase wants to use a different, less specific-position-based system, that tactical depth is a large part of why I prefer PF over 5e.
|
|
The point is designing the rules and presenting them in a way that does not inherently assume miniatures and a battlemap. If the only way certain rules make sense is if you NEED to have a diagram of a battlemap with minis, then maybe things have gotten too fiddly.So you mean like PF1? The only way combat in PF1 could be more fiddly and demanding a proper grid/map is if they added facing rules.
And yet, people have managed to jury rig that into working without a map reasonably well which is probably the view the devs are taking among any other legion of reasons to prioritize a more map focused system which range from identity to preference.
Can you do it? Yes.
Is it common or expected? Not really.TotM play in PF1 is so uncommon the devs hadn't even considered it when designing PF2.
Which is the point. A not insignificant number of people play TotM. That so few are engaging with PF2 is lost revenue and an excluded audience.
|
|
Nothing is ever going to appeal to everyone. Trying to do so is a fool's errand and ultimately leads to bland products (see also, the general complaints about the homogeneity of mass market products). It's virtually impossible to have a system that appeals to grid and theater players anyway because they're mutually exclusive systems. You flat out cannot have the granularity of template effects, positioning, etc with a theater system that abstracts positioning to say engaged/close/medium/long so it boils down to which niche the devs want to appeal to since one way or another you're going to lose an audience in some capacity. In this case they chose maps for a bunch of reasons we can only speculate.
Right.
But do they need to loose as much as a third of the potential audience?Just saying "well.. we can't please everyone so we shouldn't even try" is defeatist and dismissive.
Paizo has some of the best devs in the industry. While they may not be able to find a happy medium that makes everyone happy, they should be able to strike a balance that makes it possible for a not insignificant number of TotM fans to still feel comfortable with the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much catering to ToTM/gridless do they actually need to do? GM says "you are about 15' away and can approach without provoking." GM says "you can catch 3 people in that fireball, 4 if you don't mind catching the fighter in the effect". ToTM essentially just handwaves the gridbased rules and puts it in the hands of the GM. You don't exactly need rules for it - I mean, do you even need a sidebar, if fully a third of players (using JDs figures) are doing it already without any such sidebar or support in PF1! It's not like they felt so disenfranchised that those who wanted to, didn't do it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I am not exactly sure what people expect Paizo to do to make the game better for TotM. I've played Pathfinder, 5e, 2e, and Dungeon World TotM. I've played 5e with the grid, TotM, and an in between using a white board abstracted map. Dungeon World straight up doesn't support the grid.
You know what I've found in all this? The system actually means very little for how effectively you can TotM. What matters it the players being able to see the picture the GM is trying to paint. This is a two way street involving spatial awareness and visualization on both sides of the screen. I've seen players get hung up on positioning just fine in dungeon world. "Wait, how is that guy targeting me? Where am I in relation to him and this corner?" And I have seen these same issues happen on the grid, too. "Wait, can I target that guy, or is that little blurb of terrain something that blocks my view/movement?"
We had TotM crash and burn in a 5e session my buddy ran because players didn't understand the terrain, leading to them doing pointless moves. I then ran a TotM pathfinder battle, using a map from a module as a reference point for myself but not bothering to draw it out for my players. I kept it moving and flowing quickly this way, and my buddy sadly commented that I was just better at TotM than him. :(
The thing is, stripping things out of a game is an easier to house rule than adding them in. You can play Pathfinder using TotM and smooth over a lot of the granular detail to get an experience more like Dungeon World, but you can't play Dungeon World with the tactical precision of Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, removing AoOs as the standard already did half the work, because it's usually those that make moving in head most of the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even when, back in the old days, we played a "theatre of the mind"-style game, precise positioning sometimes became important. In those cases, either the DM had a map of the location already, or he quick-sketched one up, and marked positions with little "x"s, and we made a determination on range, spell effect, charge move or whatever based on that map. Mapping was a big thing, even from the 70s. Dungeon maps, wilderness maps and so on. So this was a natural part of TotM. Somewhere, there was always a fall-back premise of a map in order to adjudicate corner cases and tricky details. The extent to which a given DM would refer to those maps varied from one DM to the next.
And it always will. Theatre of the Mind is all well and good, but in this discussion we should realize that it's not an either/or proposition. There are degrees of "TotM-edness" and even if you don't use a grid and figures or markers of some sort, there is always the idea of a map of the tactical situation lurking somewhere in the background, as vague or precise as a given DM feels the need.