Battlemat vs Pure imagination?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey everyone,

When I first started playing dungeons and dragons there certainly were not as many cool accessories easily available as there are these days.

With the use of Battlemats, dry erase game boards, and the prepainted figurines I believe I have witnessed players, who would have otherwise been hesitant and slow to learn tabletop, have a great time instead of painful, and potentially embarrassing, learning experiences.

Alternatively, I sometimes miss the days where our dm was an experienced wordsmith who drew a picture; which was only visually complimented by facial and hand gestures. Perhaps clever lighting or simple props made their way into the room.


Tell me what you have all come to prefer.

How do you view the topic of mental image vs visual aid?

Does having a battlemat prevent chaos and misunderstanding to the point of becoming a near necessity?




Thank you in advance. I find myself coming to you for answers more and more these days.
Your knowledge, alone and combined, surely makes the game better for myself/my table.

-Dove

[djreynolds]

I like the battlemat if only because it really showcases the movement aspect of the game. If you play a rogue, knowing the landscape helps you position yourself for sneak attacks. All these spells have distances and AoEs as well. A good DM will use the battlemat to hamper casters and not allow them to cast AoEs because the DM positioned themselves in such a way to perhaps prevent you from casting a fireball or lighting bolts because your buddy is in the way.

The draw back is, it takes time to set up. A very good DM may have multiple battlemats drawn up in preparation, but he/she has a life too. Veteran players can probably be flexible and do either.

For major battles, though, as a DM I will draw up prior to play big maps laid out. 1 hour of prep time for me while everyone is saying hello, really speeds the game up.

[tsotate]

Having had a character die from the DM and I having very different ideas of his position*, I'm a big believer in battlemaps being helpful.

* "He breaks his Staff of the Magi, and the retributive strike kills you."
"What?! This wand has a range of 90 yards. Why in the world would I have been close enough to get caught in the blast?"

[manny2510]

I prefer to take time to set up a field of battle on roll20 prior to every session because since I play with randoms I don't want some whiney player to complain over their death. Some stay for more than 3 sessions, some leave when their character dies, either way I'm not derailing a session over player placement.

[Bubzors]

I prefer the use of the battlemat. No confusion of where anyone is, no confusion on how many goblins are in the fireball AOE, etc. Honestly, I think ToTM for battle is BS. Due to the rules using exact feet as measurements of range and speed, in ToTM all you are doing is recreating the vision of a battle map in your mind. This just takes more time and can lead to misunderstandings. Now if we were using a different rule-set where exact distances didn't matter, and just used vague distances like melee, near, and far, ToTM would probably work fine.

However, I only use the battlemap when a combat begins that'll last more than a turn or two. I like to have a more narrative flow to the game. For example in my last session, my PCs ended up getting into a bar fight with some local ruffians. The PCs were level 5, and the ruffians a bunch of nobodies. The PCs outnumbered them 5v4 and they decided to throw the first punch and get the jump on them. I didn't bother with combat at all as it would just stretch out the encounter just to resolve that the players win the fight in 2 rounds and maybe get hit once. Instead I narrated the fight in an epic throwing a guy out of a window fashion and moved along.

[Gignere]

I do both and can change from one to another without breaking the flow. This way even when I don't have the necessary prep time I don't have to cancel game night. Also sometime with ToTM the fighting can even be more vivid and is not slowed down by players wasting time trying to measure out how many enemies I can hit with my fireball while avoiding all of my buddies.

[Guran]

I prefer the mat as well. In my experience - both as a player and as a DM - not every mind runs at the same pace, not every interpration culminates into the same picture and not everyone on your table might have your level of imagination. This is why I use the battle mat as a support for our imagination. Everybody can clearly see who is where, who is in range and what features are in the room/cave/tunnel/grassland they can utilize. There are no arguments about (mis)placements or misinterpretations. It also allows for a more tactical approach of encounters. Not that I never use pure theatre of the mind, sometimes I throw it in as a change of pace to surprise my players.

Most of my battlemaps are made in advance. Meaning that a lot of them will not be used in the session they were designed for because the players may make a different choice. But then I'll use them another session because why not? For encounters that I did not foresee (which either comes forth out of the players being incredibly creative or incredibly stupid or... And this is most often the case: Both) I use a dry erase mat.

With "matbuilding" you can do some very awesome things though. A friend of mine DM'd a few sessions at our public campaign and he made parts of a temple with some kind of polystyrene (if that is the correct English word, I'm not sure) and cardboard. It was awesome. He also made gelatinous cubes with hot glue and some shapes that he could actually place over the miniatures representing the characters.

[Fri]

I actually prefer something in the line of rough general layout picture. So my preference when dming would be a small dry-erase board and a whiteboard marker. When my players enter a place I draw a rough picture of the area, like, if it's an airship, I draw a crude airship map, pointing where everyone are and how big the ship is, and just go from there, erasing and redrawing as needed. I don't play games where we use minute positioning or ranges anyway, always just rough ranges and such.

[DanyBallon]

In our first few games using 5e, we used grid, but we soon droped it as it was slowing the game and we got used to just describe what we were doing, and in case of AoE, DM often ask the players to remind him of where their character are, so their ain't too much arguing about being caught in the blast.
I don't think we would go back to using grid, even for complex fight.

[Mad_Saulot]

I have never used battlemats or anything like that, all my games are in the minds eye and rely on my descriptions of the world, the player controls everything about his character within that world and so a story is formed created by all.

I always hated DMs who speak like: "You walk into the red-eyelord tavern and grimace at the smell of puke on the floor" <-----This statement from the DM is WRONG, a DM should never describe what the player is doing or thinking, thats the exclusive task of the player, instead the above description by the DM should go something like this: "You finally find the tavern you are looking for called the red-eyelord, even from the street the noises and foul smells inside repels decent folk who are forced to pass the place."

Having said that I do use maps and floor plans for dungeons but these are for reference only and the player must make his own map if he wants one based off of my description, it is often interesting to compare the players map with the dungeon map they often end up very abstracted.

Combat positioning is never a problem so long as you have a DM that describes the pertinent descriptive info first while combat pressure is on, then only describes an area in detail when combat pressure is off.

Miniatures and battlemats take the focus away from ones own imagination, if you like those things why not play Warhammer instead, my games are more than just narratives between combats.

D&D 4th Edition is why I quit D&D, I'm so glad 5e was created!

[CNagy]

Battlemats, though technically I use both.

Big set pieces have maps that are fairly detailed, showing difficult terrain, soft and hard cover, partially and fully obscuring, and elevation by color. So if you want to know if you can dash from boulder to boulder to avoid much of the enemy archer fire, you can look at the map and get a pretty good idea without having to ask. When you are contemplating either following the winding path up the hill or scaling the side of the hill to get to the enemy commander, you've got an idea of how much movement that will take and where you'll end up. I do line of sight on the fly, though, so enemies aren't revealed until you see them/they make themselves known (not in a hidden attacker kind of way, more like the "you don't know there are three ogres around a cooking pot in the enemy camp until you actually get up the hill to the camp").

Over the years I've also made a bunch of random encounter maps; forest, roadside, mountain, swamp, cave, city. I call them random encounter maps but I basically use them whenever the terrain fits and I've got a few of each to keep it from being the same layout over and over.

That said, we also do theater of the mind for action sequences like ship to ship combat, chase scenes interspersed with combat, combat that is either too easy for the party (dustups with the local toughs) or too hard for the party (intentional "you should retreat" or capture scenarios). The important thing about DMing theater of the mind is that the benefit of the doubt generally goes to the PCs, but keep track of where the party starts in relation to each other and in relation to the enemy so that when you have the enemy spellcaster cast something with a 60' range and one player objects that he should be outside the targeting range, you can respond with "when did you move 40' away from the rest of your party?" You should only have to do that a couple of times before people start describing their actions in better detail.

[Deadandamnation]

Me and my group still play a Pure Imagination D&D, the only thing that we use is a paper for combats or sometimes a grid with miniatures (that are any kind of things, one day my druid's bear " was a paper star coin to say so)

[MightyDog16]

I prefer battlements for combat. Like many have already said, it eliminates rule-based confusion. On a side-note, painting minis isn't as hard as some people make it out to be. There are a lot of good videos and guides out there to help get you started with minimal cost.

[Daishain]

Nothing about the battlemat prevents the DM from being a wordsmith. Its role is to give you a better sense of scale and positioning than the DM could even if they spent an hour on every combat listing off distances (and would do so with far fewer mistakes to boot.)

It does not prohibit the DM from describing the landscape, or the encounter, or even bits that expand upon what the mat tells you. It is entirely up to the DM whether he says "A pair of hobgoblins who had been hidden from your sight charge Yerkin from behind, they will be upon the sorcerer in mere moments" or "2 hobs appear, their dash action takes them to 2 squares away from John's dude"

[Daishain]

I prefer battlements for combat. Like many have already said, it eliminates rule-based confusion. On a side-note, painting minis isn't as hard as some people make it out to be. There are a lot of good videos and guides out there to help get you started with minimal cost.
On top of which it is reasonably simple to obtain prepainted minis for those of us who lack the time for such artistry

[Tanarii]

Miniatures is the OG Gygaxian way to play. All the original guys were war gamers, not role-players. RP came later. Then eventually people started using Theatre of the Mind style non-mini play, although it wasn't the default.

I've heard lots of people complained about heavy reliance on miniatures & battle maps during every edition, but the only edition of D&D where it wasn't the default assumption is BECMI.
1e was mini based but the assumption was you'd measure distances with a ruler not use a battlemap. Because wargamers.
2e kinda-sorta was a theatre of the mind style edition at first, but then they released Combat & Tactics and minatures became the standard way to play again.
3e/3.5 was mini-based by default.
4e was almost impossible to play without minis.

Theatre of the Mind as default for 5e is a radical innovation.

[CharonsHelper]

I prefer using mats/grids etc for combat. Part of what I play RPGs for is the tactical elements.

Plus they eliminate confusion about where everyone is and are going. And while there's a bit of set-up time - they speed up gameplay instead of asking the GM every round exactly where everything is relative to your character.


Miniatures and battlemats take the focus away from ones own imagination, if you like those things why not play Warhammer instead, my games are more than just narratives between combats.

I'm sorry - but that's just wrong. It's fine that you don't use mats, but by that logic I could just as easily say:

"If you aren't going to use hard & fast rules with mats, why not play one of the diceless systems instead? My games are more than just people playing pretend willy nilly."

(I don't actually think that at all - just making a point with the opposite extreme.)


EDIT: Noticed that I'd quoted incorrectly so that the quote was a mess.

[Falcon X]

I only recently used the battlemat for a Shadowrun game, but it sure made the fights betters. Slowed things down a bit elsewhere though.

My most common method is pure imagination mixed with a small map for exploration. What I do is pull up Adobe Photoshop, and create a bunch of layers of black on different parts of the map that slowly reveal as the characters make their way through. Not unlike a Fog of War in common Real Time Strategy games.
That small visual definitely makes things quicker and easier to remember without actually managing a full map.

[mephnick]

Battle map for fights. Mind for everything else.

We've played without the mat before and ended up drawing stuff out anyway, so we went back to the mat pretty fast. I use a lot of enemies, terrain and elevations. It's generally just worth a few minutes to draw it all out.

[Nu]

I'm always grateful when a DM uses grid-based maps for combat, and as a DM I do so as well.

Outside of combat, rough maps and theater of the mind are usually sufficient.

I don't like doing combat without a grid or at least some sort of reference. I've tried it and I just almost always see misunderstandings arise between players and/or DMs about where things are in relation to each other. I don't buy that using a combat map somehow "takes away" from the experience or removes imagination from the equation (such claims are absurd in my mind), though I can see it slightly slowing down play in some cases.

[Tanarii]

Edit: For those interested in some historical perspective of mini use in D&D rules: http://drchris.me/d20/?p=1812
Looks like I was wrong about BECMI not assuming mini use.


Miniatures and battlemats take the focus away from ones own imagination, if you like those things why not play Warhammer instead, my games are more than just narratives between combats.You seem to have the mistaken impression that your style of play was normal for Dungeons and Dragons. That's not correct. Historically, mini-based play was the default.


D&D 4th Edition is why I quit D&D, I'm so glad 5e was created!4e did suck for people that had adapted D&D to be non-mini-based. Because unlike previous editions, making that work was almost impossible.

[Pex]

Neither is better. It's just personal preference. I prefer the battle mat so that there's no ambiguity between what players and DM think is happening where. The characters are right there. It's in character to know what is where and don't metagame darkness/blindness. Players also know whether or not they can do particular tactics and placement of effects they can do without having to ask "mother may I" every turn.

[Edenbeast]

We rarely use battle maps. Everything is mostly in the theater of the mind. In some tricky situations we use a piece of paper to make a schematic overview of positions and structures. This has always worked for us. One of of our players once introduced a grid, but most of the time it was just sitting in a corner unused, and the times that we did use it, it felt clunky and too much a hassle.

[Madeiner]

I guess i'm at the far end of the spectrum.

I use maptools and i strive to find very good maps that can accurately represent what i have in mind.
I let the software handle all the rolls so that i can have faster encounters.
I even use HP bars not unlike a videogame.

I also find pictures online to represent characters, again looking for thing that are visually conveying what i have in mind.
Sometimes i can design a monster or encounter based on its image alone, or am inspired by it.

I spend a lot of time looking for pictures that illustrate the things around the PCs, instead of describing them myself. I find pictures evoke far more than simple description, at which i'm not too good at.

We play with one laptop which i use, and one TV screen that can display the battlemap or pictures over a local network.
Finally, i use chromecast to stream audio (i have an audiostation with sound effects and music, down to having a theme for some recurring NPCs, or even voiceovers for bosses' dialogs.) and video.
Every 10 sessions or so, i show a cinematic to my players, which i craft using varius editing softwares.

[ChelseaNH]

Generally, maps for combat. Since we're using Roll20 now, they have grids built in. Before that, we'd use a whiteboard. It just helps keep track of everything, and the players don't spend time confirming their assumptions before making a move.

For Thundertree, I didn't bother mapping some of the fights with the twig things, and for some indoor zombie fights, I didn't use tokens for the monsters. In those cases, the movements of the characters weren't that complicated. So for us it's really more about comfort level, rather than practicing a specific style of play.

[Vogonjeltz]

Having had a character die from the DM and I having very different ideas of his position*, I'm a big believer in battlemaps being helpful.

* "He breaks his Staff of the Magi, and the retributive strike kills you."
"What?! This wand has a range of 90 yards. Why in the world would I have been close enough to get caught in the blast?"

This is pretty much the biggest reason to actually draw out positioning for things like combat, because any two people imagining a situation involving multiple characters fighting will have an entirely different understanding of what is going on and how.

I find that when there is no shared visual representation a player will often dictate a course of action and then the DM, who has a different view of the situation in their minds eye, narrates a catastrophic outcome.

Whereas if the two had a shared understanding either the player would have seen that what they said they wanted to do was dangerous/folly or the DM would have not made the assumptions they did.

[JoeJ]

I've been playing with a grid since 1e. I prefer it, mainly because the DM doesn't have to keep describing over and over again where things are positioned every time one of the players forgets. Ironically, however, one of the things that really bothers me about 3e is the grid. Not that it exists, but that for some idiotic reason they used squares instead of hexagons as the default.

[Logosloki]

I use grids for key fights, maps for general movement (depending on time to scout/investigate some of the map may be covered, a pseudo fog of war) and an overview of the game with a world map when they aren't in an area that necessarily needs a map.

This is really for campaigns. If I run a one-shot I may forgo grids and such unless I can easily lif- be inspired by another campaign.

[Tanarii]

Ironically, however, one of the things that really bothers me about 3e is the grid. Not that it exists, but that for some idiotic reason they used squares instead of hexagons as the default.Graph paper. White boards with ruler are easier. And square mats are more common and cheaper. But mostly tradition. ;)

[Sitri]

In 2e days I played games both with and without a mat and it seemed to be fine. I don't remember any advanced terrain in those days or control freak DMs.

After many years away from the game I came back to almost all mats all the time. I played with one Dm that didn't use mats and it sucked horribly. Not only did it reduce tactical combat, our Dm would use it as a gotcha to screw players over that didn't understand the layout of an area. If enough players would chime in that it wasn't clear where things were he would reverse some actions. We also spent a lot of time with preemptive questions getting every little detail during combat to prevent future "surprises. " It was not fun at all.

Mats for me.

[Tanarii]

A relevant AngryDM rant:
http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-theater-of-the-mind/

[Sitri]

A relevant AngryDM rant:
http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-theater-of-the-mind/

I find it amusing that he starts with the pretentiousness of the "Theater of the Mind" term.

I felt the title of this thread was a little biased as well (not saying it was intentional), but not near as much as TotM. If I were to name this thread seeking support for my opinion, I would name it "Artistic Representations vs Lack of Visual Aids."

[georgie_leech]

I prefer maps of some sort, so there's a clear indicator of where things are and what sort of terrain and obstacles are present. I find it encourages more tactical play. However, I don't mind TotM, and I have noticed one significant advantage aside from prep time. It might just be a quirk of the group I'm playing with, but for whatever reason TotM seems to encourage more improvisation in actions as oppose to default abilities. I think the map might lend a sense of permanence to the terrain, like it's a video game and with the exception of certain objects, it isn't interacted with. I'm toying with more easily changed maps in an attempt to see if I can encourage more improvisation , stuff like propping up tables for cover or the like.

[Waazraath]

Hey everyone,

When I first started playing dungeons and dragons there certainly were not as many cool accessories easily available as there are these days.

With the use of Battlemats, dry erase game boards, and the prepainted figurines I believe I have witnessed players, who would have otherwise been hesitant and slow to learn tabletop, have a great time instead of painful, and potentially embarrassing, learning experiences.

Alternatively, I sometimes miss the days where our dm was an experienced wordsmith who drew a picture; which was only visually complimented by facial and hand gestures. Perhaps clever lighting or simple props made their way into the room.


Tell me what you have all come to prefer.

How do you view the topic of mental image vs visual aid?

Does having a battlemat prevent chaos and misunderstanding to the point of becoming a near necessity?




Thank you in advance. I find myself coming to you for answers more and more these days.
Your knowledge, alone and combined, surely makes the game better for myself/my table.

-Dove

It really depends... both on the combat (how complex is it) and on the players (some player's simply can't work without it, and interrupt every other round with "wait, but where was X again"... and still are able to miss the picture). So with average players, I wouldn't use it on an open plain with a giant showing up at 100 ft from behind a turn in the road; I would use it in a combat in a cave with a deep chasm and 3 diffent types of enemy coming from different directions. In between, well, depends. Usually on the bloke who should bring / should have brought the battlemat and/or the markers ;)

[JoeJ]

Graph paper. White boards with ruler are easier. And square mats are more common and cheaper. But mostly tradition. ;)

We used a hex grid back when I was playing 1e. Even way back then you could find hex grid mats in game stores. In addition to D&D, most of us also played a lot of war games (primarily Avalon Hill, SPI, and Metagaming), almost all of which used hexagons, because they distort movement less than a square grid does. Finding squares as the assumption in 3e was kind of a WTF moment.

Interestingly, I've rarely seen a map of any kind used in superhero games. That might be a result of vastly higher movement rates for some characters, though.

[Safety Sword]

Anyone who says that grids slow down the game hasn't been introduced to pre-cutting common areas of effects at your chosen scale and having pre-made "measuring sticks" for the common movement distances.

It saves me time because the players have all of the tools they need to make their decisions in front of them and there is no doubt about where everyone is at any time.

[Safety Sword]

We used a hex grid back when I was playing 1e. Even way back then you could find hex grid mats in game stores. In addition to D&D, most of us also played a lot of war games (primarily Avalon Hill, SPI, and Metagaming), almost all of which used hexagons, because they distort movement less than a square grid does. Finding squares as the assumption in 3e was kind of a WTF moment.

Interestingly, I've rarely seen a map of any kind used in superhero games. That might be a result of vastly higher movement rates for some characters, though.

My old BattleTech map sheets sometimes pull double duty ;)

[Slipperychicken]

Having had a character die from the DM and I having very different ideas of his position*, I'm a big believer in battlemaps being helpful.

* "He breaks his Staff of the Magi, and the retributive strike kills you."
"What?! This wand has a range of 90 yards. Why in the world would I have been close enough to get caught in the blast?"

This. Having an unambiguous visual representation helps avoid confusion over movement, position, and other important details. That can be anything from a gridded vinyl mat, a dry-erase board, paper and tokens, to lego pieces on a bare tabletop.

In a game like 5th edition D&D, combat details are quite important. This game concerns itself chiefly with mortal conflict and precise distances, such that battles sometimes hinge on the exact position of a character or effect. For this reason, if not the frustration that happens when there's disagreement on these details, I recommend the use of mats or similar things whenever exact position and distance are important.

[Tanarii]

We used a hex grid back when I was playing 1e. Even way back then you could find hex grid mats in game stores. In addition to D&D, most of us also played a lot of war games (primarily Avalon Hill, SPI, and Metagaming), almost all of which used hexagons, because they distort movement less than a square grid does. Finding squares as the assumption in 3e was kind of a WTF moment.Really? I used to go crazy not being able to find a hex grid map, and I live in the second largest city in the U.S. I'm jealous. :)

I played various Hex-grid board games too (especially Avon Hill), and I agree Hex is clearly a superior system for movement and circular AoEs. It used to drive me nuts for cones for some reason, but it's not like squares do that better.

[JoeJ]

Really? I used to go crazy not being able to find a hex grid map, and I live in the second largest city in the U.S. I'm jealous. :)

The game store I went to in Santa Barbara, CA had them, although I don't remember the brand name. Clear plastic sheets with hexagons printed on them. This would have been some time prior to 1982.

[AeonsShadow]

Battlemats are great for different situations where there is a specific place you are in, and it's nice when you are guiding them through a dungeon. The dry erase ones are very useful for this.

Imagination is better for when you are having fun and all around and lets the players use thier heads for tricky situations.

Both are great and work well together more than JUST one or the other in my opinion.

[Sitri]

I do both and can change from one to another without breaking the flow. This way even when I don't have the necessary prep time I don't have to cancel game night. Also sometime with ToTM the fighting can even be more vivid and is not slowed down by players wasting time trying to measure out how many enemies I can hit with my fireball while avoiding all of my buddies.

A DM can still provide vivid descriptions and use visual aides. I also see no problem with a DM saying "you have 6 seconds, go! " when a player is dragging out a turn to try and maximize something during combat.

Sometimes prep can be demanding, but if running a homebrew game, maps can be as simple as you like.

[Tanarii]

Yeah. Speed is not the issue in mini-combat vs narrative-combat. Precision & envisioning are.

That can translate into a loss of speed for either group. Folks in mini-combat trying to be overly precise with a tactical map can drag out play. Folks unsure what's going on in with a complex battle in narrative-combat can be confused and drag out play.

The main difference is Mini-combat works better with complexity, so precision based tactical combat using tactical elements already visually in play tend to become the focus of combat. Narrative-combat works best with simplicity, so tactical options must be innovated on the spot.

The other difference is that for many people, having a concrete visual reference makes that the *only* thing they're visualizing. Instead of picturing a PC ducking behind a crate and sniping over the edge, they see a mini moving over to get partial cover. That's completely unsurprising and the default way the human mind works. When given a visual reference, it 'fixes' what we picture in our mind. Thats why many players see minis as an impediment to play, not an aid.

[JoeJ]

Yeah. Speed is not the issue in mini-combat vs narrative-combat. Precision & envisioning are.

That can translate into a loss of speed for either group. Folks in mini-combat trying to be overly precise with a tactical map can drag out play. Folks unsure what's going on in with a complex battle in narrative-combat can be confused and drag out play.

The main difference is Mini-combat works better with complexity, so precision based tactical combat using tactical elements already visually in play tend to become the focus of combat. Narrative-combat works best with simplicity, so tactical options must be innovated on the spot.

The other difference is that for many people, having a concrete visual reference makes that the *only* thing they're visualizing. Instead of picturing a PC ducking behind a crate and sniping over the edge, they see a mini moving over to get partial cover. That's completely unsurprising and the default way the human mind works. When given a visual reference, it 'fixes' what we picture in our mind. Thats why many players see minis as an impediment to play, not an aid.

Another possible problem is that using a map creates the illusion of greater precision than it actually provides. You're rounding distances to the nearest 5 feet, which is not very precise at all when you're shooting arrows or lightning bolts. A single 5 foot square or hexagon is actually quite a bit of space for something human sized to move around in, and the difference between no cover, partial cover, and total cover can sometimes be only 1 or 2 feet.

[Nu]

Another possible problem is that using a map creates the illusion of greater precision than it actually provides. You're rounding distances to the nearest 5 feet, which is not very precise at all when you're shooting arrows or lightning bolts. A single 5 foot square or hexagon is actually quite a bit of space for something human sized to move around in, and the difference between no cover, partial cover, and total cover can sometimes be only 1 or 2 feet.

This is actually irrelevant since the game itself defines nearly everything by 5 foot intervals and it has nothing to do with the grid. If it's important to the players, they can have squares on a grid count as 1 or 2 feet per square, but the point is that the grid is actually just as precise as the players wish it to be (which is typically defined by the system itself). And DnD mostly measures everything in increments of 5 feet.

The system does not actually concern itself with discrepancies between various degrees of cover which vary if you're 2 feet further away, nor does it concern itself with player positioning for determining the range of arrows or lightning bolts beyond 5-foot increments--that'd be entirely on the DM.

[Kane0]

This session I learned that battle,aps make lightning bolts much easier to use well.

[JoeJ]

This is actually irrelevant since the game itself defines nearly everything by 5 foot intervals and it has nothing to do with the grid. If it's important to the players, they can have squares on a grid count as 1 or 2 feet per square, but the point is that the grid is actually just as precise as the players wish it to be (which is typically defined by the system itself). And DnD mostly measures everything in increments of 5 feet.

The system does not actually concern itself with discrepancies between various degrees of cover which vary if you're 2 feet further away, nor does it concern itself with player positioning for determining the range of arrows or lightning bolts beyond 5-foot increments--that'd be entirely on the DM.

It's only irrelevant if you don't find it immersion breaking that your character can move 10' or 15', but not 13'. Or that you can't place an area effect spell where you want to because it has to be measured from a grid intersection. This becomes quite important when it affects which creatures are in the spell effect.

The system does, in fact, let you stand behind a 3' wide tree and get total cover if you're using TotM. It's only when you're playing on a map that you can't do that, because cover is determined by how many corners of your square or hexagon the enemy can see, regardless of where you actually are within that space.

It is possible, however, to get the best of both worlds by having a map but only using it as an aid in keeping track of everybody and estimating distances. In other words, don't restrict movement and spells to the grid and guestimate cover based on the size and placement of the miniature and the player's description rather than using corners. If you're doing that, using a hex grid in place of squares has the additional benefit that it almost certainly does not exactly fit the shape of the dungeon room, which provides a visual reminder to the players that the grid does not control anything.

[Kane0]

It is possible, however, to get the best of both worlds by having a map but only using it as an aid in keeping track of everybody and estimating distances. In other words, don't restrict movement and spells to the grid and guestimate cover based on the size and placement of the miniature and the player's description rather than using corners. If you're doing that, using a hex grid in place of squares has the additional benefit that it almost certainly does not exactly fit the shape of the dungeon room, which provides a visual reminder to the players that the grid does not control anything.


That's what we do. We use a hex map to help determine distance and positioning, but are free to do pretty much whatever within that. Joe has it right, at least in regards to my group.

[Pex]

It's only irrelevant if you don't find it immersion breaking that your character can move 10' or 15', but not 13'. Or that you can't place an area effect spell where you want to because it has to be measured from a grid intersection. This becomes quite important when it affects which creatures are in the spell effect.

The system does, in fact, let you stand behind a 3' wide tree and get total cover if you're using TotM. It's only when you're playing on a map that you can't do that, because cover is determined by how many corners of your square or hexagon the enemy can see, regardless of where you actually are within that space.

It is possible, however, to get the best of both worlds by having a map but only using it as an aid in keeping track of everybody and estimating distances. In other words, don't restrict movement and spells to the grid and guestimate cover based on the size and placement of the miniature and the player's description rather than using corners. If you're doing that, using a hex grid in place of squares has the additional benefit that it almost certainly does not exactly fit the shape of the dungeon room, which provides a visual reminder to the players that the grid does not control anything.

If a tree is supposed to be wide enough that you can get total cover hiding behind it, in grid maps the tree would take up its own space and you're in the space behind that. If you wanted to be in the tree space itself that would be a stealth check, but that might only be good for partial cover based on race, size, proficiency, and/or the stealth roll vs perception. Is that RAW? No idea, but that's due to vagueness of 5E skills, a different topic. The point stands that using a grid mat does not require everything be in 5 ft increments.

5E did change the dynamics in terms of movement, allowing characters to move before and after whatever it is they want to do. Their total movement allowance is divisible by 5 ft but how much of it before and after don't have to be. However, it's not bug that pre-5E practically everything was in 5 ft increments. It's an abstraction. The use or non-use of a mat is irrelevant there. D&D is not an exact detail simulation, wasn't meant to be, not supposed to be. If it's possible to be so exact not using a mat, great, enjoy, but one should not fault D&D or those who use mats for not being so exact. It's not necessarily a feature, but it's not a flaw.

[Foxhound438]

personally i like having a mat because it's always a bit frustrating to ask "is that guy in 30 feet" 900 times per night, verses just looking how far away you are and knowing for yourself.

[BootStrapTommy]

Battle mat.

Last thing I need as a DM is for my players to argue with me about where they thought they were located.

[NNescio]

Theater of the Mind works when distance and space are less crucial. This can work in some games (canonical Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard with Wiz blasting and Rogue not kiting), where distance only matters in the first (or first two rounds) before the combatants all move within range. It gets cumbersome if the combatants kite each other (e.g. rogue), especially when alternate means of movement become available, as distances have to be made clear every turn.

The main issue, after all, is that the theater is different for each player (and DM)'s mind. Having a battlemat makes the battlefield unambiguous. Even having one without grids helps.

Things gets worse for Theater of the Mind once ongoing BFC effects are in play (including summons used to block movement). Theater of the Mind just falls apart when there are two or more such effects in play ("Nuh-uh, I didn't walk into the Black Tentacles!" "But the Wizard just cast it over there!" "No I didn't! I centered it 10 ft to the right over that side!" "But what about the wolves the Druid summoned two turns ago over there?") , unless the players are willing to sacrifice most of their agency to the DM.

[Slipperychicken]

I felt the title of this thread was a little biased as well (not saying it was intentional), but not near as much as TotM. If I were to name this thread seeking support for my opinion, I would name it "Artistic Representations vs Lack of Visual Aids."

Seconding this. The title implies that the use of such aids represents deviation from an idealized "pure" style of play. It implies by extension that players who use battlemats are less imaginative than those who do not. The attitudes underlying these assumptions are more than I'm willing to explore here, but are no less problematic for it.

[The Shadowdove]

Seconding this. The title implies that the use of such aids represents deviation from an idealized "pure" style of play. It implies by extension that players who use battlemats are less imaginative than those who do not. The attitudes underlying these assumptions are more than I'm willing to explore here, but are no less problematic for it.

Ah, I had no intention of saying one is superior to the other.

I just want to see how people feel about the place of either/both.


It's obvious that the use of battlemap, in general, is obscenely useful for battling misunderstand; as I suspected in my original post.


IF the title implies too much, I'm more than happy to change it. I wrote it on a smart-phone and was kind of thinking on the fly. No implications intended.

[Safety Sword]

Seconding this. The title implies that the use of such aids represents deviation from an idealized "pure" style of play. It implies by extension that players who use battlemats are less imaginative than those who do not. The attitudes underlying these assumptions are more than I'm willing to explore here, but are no less problematic for it.

Considering everything that the "Angry GM" writes in an opinion piece, are you really surprised?

[MrStabby]

So I see battle mats as a tool.

A tool should have a purpose.

If the purpose is not needed or the tool does not help you achieve that purpose then the tool is not nescescary.

Battlemats are tools to communicate efficiently relatively large amounts of spacial information. Where players would not have good judgement of such things (in a fog cloud for example), where a focus on spatial information is not particularly important (everything is within close range/movement distance of everything else) or there is not a lot of information to communicate (very symmetric terrain, few combatants etc.) I wouldn't use them as i feel they slow down game play and focus the players on spatial information rather than descriptive content that they may find more relevant.

Now with enemies at different ranges, with different weapons and of different types in rooms with corners, cover and multiple pathways do different PCs I would almost always want a battlemat. It is a great tool for conveying and recording the needed information.

As a side note i also find that battlemats impose a tactical type of thinking on players - you put a stranger in front of them on a tactical display PCs are more likely to treat them in a hostile manner if a battlemat is out in front of them. There is an element of metagame thought - if a tactical display is provided then a hostile action is justified and the creatures in front of them are more likely to be evil (to PCs minds anyway).

[Safety Sword]

As a side note i also find that battlemats impose a tactical type of thinking on players - you put a stranger in front of them on a tactical display PCs are more likely to treat them in a hostile manner if a battlemat is out in front of them. There is an element of metagame thought - if a tactical display is provided then a hostile action is justified and the creatures in front of them are more likely to be evil (to PCs minds anyway).

I agree with everything you said, except for the part I have quoted.

I use a mat for social encounters too. If a player wants to talk to an NPC whilst the rest of the party hangs back, I make them show me their positions so that I can be clear on who can speak to who in a normal tone of voice. Who hears whispers that PCs make to each other, and who needs to shout to instruct the party face of their ideas.

Not necessarily any hostility, just clarity of positions. That's what the map is for.

[RedMage125]

Personally, I prefer concise, precise tactical combat.

I use grids. But instead of dry-erase rubber ones, I use disposable graph paper. I get them on Amazon in 2 packs for SUPE cheap (they're Prime Eligible). My last 2 pack has lasted me over a year so far. Having paper allows me to occasionally draw some of my maps ahead of time and still draw what I need "on the fly". When I draw "on the fly", I frequently try to conserve space on the map by having one encounter map on one side of the paper, and the next encounter on the other side, and so on.

I also have literally HUNDREDS of minis, so I get to take them out and play with them. I only regret that I have not yet had an occasion to use any of my 3 Gargantuan dragon minis yet (not in combat, anyway). The one time my players encountered a Gargantuan creature, it was a Silver Dragon, and I just put the figure down to be imposing. It was a non-combat encounter.

I believe that a part of my job as a DM is to be just and fair. I run my game as close to RAW as possible (my 5e game has zero houserules, my 4e games have very few, and my 3e games have exactly 5, but my players usually like those rules). This includes alignment mechanics (which is one of the reasons I am such a fervent defender of those mechanics). I run RAW, setting aside my own ideas on how things "should" work (the handful of houserules notwithstanding), so that my players can look to the books if they have a question about how things work. If I misremember a rule, and they can pull up a rules source (quickly) and show it to me, I will abide by the RAW. If they take too long to find said rule, then my initial call stands until the end of the session, at which point they can argue rules with me for hours, I don't like bogging down a game session.

The reason this is relevant, is because it is for this exact reason I like using tactical battle maps. My players can see EXACTLY how far they are from monsters, and where they stand relative to each other. If they set up a marching order, and get surprised by an enemy who drops a fireball on all of them, they have no room to complain or say anything like "I don't think I would have been that close to everyone else". Similarly, they don't have a DM who tells them (seemingly arbitrarily) that even with a double move, they have not yet reached the monster they were heading for. Tactical battle maps, to me, mean open and fair acknowledgement by all parties of where everyone is located. Even as a player, I prefer to have these things (namely because I like to play "control" wizards, and knowing exactly where to place my spells for optimum effect is something I enjoy.

[Talakeal]

This is actually irrelevant since the game itself defines nearly everything by 5 foot intervals and it has nothing to do with the grid. If it's important to the players, they can have squares on a grid count as 1 or 2 feet per square, but the point is that the grid is actually just as precise as the players wish it to be (which is typically defined by the system itself). And DnD mostly measures everything in increments of 5 feet.

The system does not actually concern itself with discrepancies between various degrees of cover which vary if you're 2 feet further away, nor does it concern itself with player positioning for determining the range of arrows or lightning bolts beyond 5-foot increments--that'd be entirely on the DM.

One problem I had going from ad&d to 3e was getting itinto my head that you had to stick to five foot increments. I was constantly havng to be told that I couldnt walk three feet forward, I had to move in five foot intervals so that I was clearly in one square or another.

For the record, battlemats all the way. Mostly because it is confusing without one, but also because I just love models. Ral partha and a few other companies used to make heavy duty pewter versions of their miniatures which were sold in collectible stores and gift shops and I started collecting those when I was in Kindergarten, over a year before my first actual gaming book.

[Sitri]

Personally, I prefer concise, precise tactical combat.

I use grids. But instead of dry-erase rubber ones, I use disposable graph paper. I get them on Amazon in 2 packs for SUPE cheap (they're Prime Eligible). My last 2 pack has lasted me over a year so far. Having paper allows me to occasionally draw some of my maps ahead of time and still draw what I need "on the fly". When I draw "on the fly", I frequently try to conserve space on the map by having one encounter map on one side of the paper, and the next encounter on the other side, and so on.

I also have literally HUNDREDS of minis, so I get to take them out and play with them. I only regret that I have not yet had an occasion to use any of my 3 Gargantuan dragon minis yet (not in combat, anyway). The one time my players encountered a Gargantuan creature, it was a Silver Dragon, and I just put the figure down to be imposing. It was a non-combat encounter.

I believe that a part of my job as a DM is to be just and fair. I run my game as close to RAW as possible (my 5e game has zero houserules, my 4e games have very few, and my 3e games have exactly 5, but my players usually like those rules). This includes alignment mechanics (which is one of the reasons I am such a fervent defender of those mechanics). I run RAW, setting aside my own ideas on how things "should" work (the handful of houserules notwithstanding), so that my players can look to the books if they have a question about how things work. If I misremember a rule, and they can pull up a rules source (quickly) and show it to me, I will abide by the RAW. If they take too long to find said rule, then my initial call stands until the end of the session, at which point they can argue rules with me for hours, I don't like bogging down a game session.

The reason this is relevant, is because it is for this exact reason I like using tactical battle maps. My players can see EXACTLY how far they are from monsters, and where they stand relative to each other. If they set up a marching order, and get surprised by an enemy who drops a fireball on all of them, they have no room to complain or say anything like "I don't think I would have been that close to everyone else". Similarly, they don't have a DM who tells them (seemingly arbitrarily) that even with a double move, they have not yet reached the monster they were heading for. Tactical battle maps, to me, mean open and fair acknowledgement by all parties of where everyone is located. Even as a player, I prefer to have these things (namely because I like to play "control" wizards, and knowing exactly where to place my spells for optimum effect is something I enjoy.

I would follow the man to hell and back I would.


One problem I had going from ad&d to 3e was getting itinto my head that you had to stick to five foot increments. I was constantly havng to be told that I couldnt walk three feet forward, I had to move in five foot intervals so that I was clearly in one square or another.

For the record, battlemats all the way. Mostly because it is confusing without one, but also because I just love models. Ral partha and a few other companies used to make heavy duty pewter versions of their miniatures which were sold in collectible stores and gift shops and I started collecting those when I was in Kindergarten, over a year before my first actual gaming book.

I have a few containers of painted minis and maybe 10-15 unpainted individuals. I really like the metal ones also, but have occasionally found I need to pick up some plastic recently to get the figure I like.

Painting a mini specifically for my character gives me a much greater sense of attachment to the character. While I sometimes reuse them for other characters, they always retain the name of the original character when I am trying to reference them outside of the game (Like if I am asking my wife where it is, I am not quite a big enough nerd to talk about my minis in general conversion.........but this post is starting to make me wonder.)

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I vary when I'm DMing, sometimes due to not having the mat at the time, sometimes due to the time it would take to prepare everything.

When tactical movement, positioning and more accuracy is required (like in boss fights, encounters in trapped rooms or some encounters heavily altered by range and AoOs), the mat is used. When the rapid flow of the game is more important (like in battles with hordes of enemy mooks), it's kept aside (and a few rolls are simplified, like rolling reflex saves for all enemies caught in the blast at once).

[steppedonad4]

The biggest problem I find with TOTM is that DM's don't know how to explain things or give enough information to players so that they have the context required to make good tactical decisions. Most DM's seem unable to differentiate between what's in their heads and what's in player's heads. I've had a DM be angry at me as a player simply because I didn't understand their perfect version of what's going on inside their heads, despite the fact that they've given very, very poor descriptions and virtually no information about what's actually happening. It's incredibly frustrating and annoying.

The mat does away with all that BS. Not only that, but players have time in-between turns to think tactically about what they want to do, manoeuvre for best effect, etc.

The second biggest problem with TOTM is related to the first. That is not having enough information to make good tactical decisions. The mat provides visual cues for players that simply don't exist in TOTM, even with a DM who is competent at description. The mat thus provides a lot more interesting combats simply because players have far more things to give them ideas on what they can do or try to do. "I want to swing off the chandelier and over the heads of the enemies and then mock them as I run out the door!" is something that, whilst it's possible in TOTM, doesn't tend to happen simply due to players not having the visual cues and context necessary to have such thoughts even occur to them. Whereas when a player can see, on the mat, that they're on a balcony, there's a chandelier, and that swinging on it could get them to the exit, all of a sudden you get players trying such actions simply because they have the information and context available to them readily as a visual cue.

[Talakeal]

The second biggest problem with TOTM is related to the first. That is not having enough information to make good tactical decisions. The mat provides visual cues for players that simply don't exist in TOTM, even with a DM who is competent at description. The mat thus provides a lot more interesting combats simply because players have far more things to give them ideas on what they can do or try to do. "I want to swing off the chandelier and over the heads of the enemies and then mock them as I run out the door!" is something that, whilst it's possible in TOTM, doesn't tend to happen simply due to players not having the visual cues and context necessary to have such thoughts even occur to them. Whereas when a player can see, on the mat, that they're on a balcony, there's a chandelier, and that swinging on it could get them to the exit, all of a sudden you get players trying such actions simply because they have the information and context available to them readily as a visual cue.

While I agree with you overall, I have to disagree with your point about the chandelier. In my experience players are unlikely to think outside the box, and few DMs place setting details like that on the mat. I find that a player is a lot more likely to imagine a chandelier without being explicitly told if there is no mat, and DMs are a lot more likely to describe the room (and details like chandeliers) if they don't have a map to do it for them.

[steppedonad4]

While I agree with you overall, I have to disagree with your point about the chandelier. In my experience players are unlikely to think outside the box, and few DMs place setting details like that on the mat. I find that a player is a lot more likely to imagine a chandelier without being explicitly told if there is no mat, and DMs are a lot more likely to describe the room (and details like chandeliers) if they don't have a map to do it for them.

In almost thirty years of playing, by far the vast majority of my experiences with literally hundreds of players and DM's has been the opposite. DM's that are good at describing environments and players that riff of anything other than visual cues are most definitely in the very small minority from my experience.

[Raphite1]

I've always played with battlemats, but we've been using Pure Imagination (aka Theater of the Mind) for the 5th Edition game I'm running. It's been awesome!

There have been no major confusions on positioning, and I'll make an ad hoc ruling on AoE stuff. Example:
Player: "Are those goblins close enough together than my fireball will hit all of them?"
Me: "Yep, they're all next to each other and none of your allies are nearby."
or
Me: "Yeah you can get all of them, but the fighter is going to get hit by it too."

I was expecting us to eventually decide to switch to a battlemat, and I've asked a couple times if the players would prefer to switch to it, but everyone is content to keep going as-is. It's really smooth, quick, and more accurate than you'd expect. Some communication skill is needed, of course.

It also takes up way less space.

[Tanarii]

While I agree with you overall, I have to disagree with your point about the chandelier. In my experience players are unlikely to think outside the box, and few DMs place setting details like that on the mat. I find that a player is a lot more likely to imagine a chandelier without being explicitly told if there is no mat, and DMs are a lot more likely to describe the room (and details like chandeliers) if they don't have a map to do it for them.
Completely agree. Players without a mat tend naturally to invent details, or at least ask about them. They kind of have to. Players with a mat tend naturally to accept the details marked on the mat is everything available.

Which is really silly when it's a hand drawn mat. Very few DMs mark in detailed crates, furniture, wall sconces /alcoves, tapestries, and ceiling hangings or heights. They usually describe them, then mark the basic dimensions of the room and critical obstacles. Then players start playing based purely on what's on the mat.

It drives me a little crazy whenever I catch myself doing it. I love mini play but the human mind naturally takes what you see as the entirety of what you get, unless you fight it.

[Sitri]

It drives me a little crazy whenever I catch myself doing it. I love mini play but the human mind naturally takes what you see as the entirety of what you get, unless you fight it.

Where were you when I had a thread about invisibility/darkness and stealth a few weeks back :P

There were so many people trying to claim vision is 100% irrelevant unless you need to know where something is within 2ft.

[Tanarii]

That potentially a little different, although I'd probably need to go find that thread to be sure I'm understanding exactly what you mean. Not wanting to derail things here.

I should have said ... when you have something to see, the human mind tends to accept that it's all there is, that it's the entire picture to hold in mind, even when it isn't. When you have nothing to see, you're more likely to invent your own components to the visualization.

That has advantages (more out-of-the-box thinking) and disadvantages (everyone is envisioning something different).

[Malifice]

I use a mix of both.

Solo encounters I can get away with ToTM. Or inconsequental fights.

Probs about 50/50.

[steppedonad4]

I love mini play but the human mind naturally takes what you see as the entirety of what you get, unless you fight it.

That's not how the human mind works. Not even close. In fact, it's actually the opposite.

You seem to make these types of statements a lot when you quite obviously have no real understanding of psychology.

[Tanarii]

You seem to make these types of statements a lot when you quite obviously have no real understanding of psychology.Thats twice now you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against me when you don't have a counter argument. Please stop. all you're doing is demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about.

[steppedonad4]

Thats twice now you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against me when you don't have a counter argument. Please stop. all you're doing is demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about.
All I've said is that you don't know what you're talking about. Which is what you just said about me. So if you classify that as ad hominem, then you've just done exactly the same thing to me.

It's not, by the way, an ad hominem. For that it would've had to have been a personal attack rather than an observation of your person. You make statements that are appeals to authority and yet you quite clearly have no authority on the matters you're claiming to be knowledgeable about. That's not a personal attack, that's me pointing out that your statements have no basis in fact.

If you don't want to be called out for being wrong, don't be wrong.

[ChelseaNH]

Any chance either of you is going to get around to citing some sources?

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually prefer something in the line of rough general layout picture. So my preference when dming would be a small dry-erase board and a whiteboard marker. When my players enter a place I draw a rough picture of the area, like, if it's an airship, I draw a crude airship map, pointing where everyone are and how big the ship is, and just go from there, erasing and redrawing as needed.
This works.

Back in the old days, we'd be mapping on graph paper, but when it came to the battles, the minis were just on the table in an order and we'd tell the DM our moves and he'd move our minis: that last bit was actually not a bad idea, and was better when we had a big enough group to have an assistant DM to a lot of the admin/calcs while the DM focuses on the story and the action.

[Tanarii]

Any chance either of you is going to get around to citing some sources?It's an outgrowth of two different things: 1) how the brain perceives and constructs an image of what it's seeing vs visualizing something it can't see; and 2) thinking we already know what's there.

Seeing something is called visual attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention#Selective_attention_and_visual_attention ), whereas picturing something in the minds eye is visual mental imagery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image). These are separate concepts (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/obsonline/seeing-and-imagining-are-different-in-the-brain.html).

The human mind reports an image of what it can really see without creating a corresponding mental image. And it interferes with the ability to visualize a mental image. That's why when you daydream or envision something, you lose some focus and attention on what you're seeing in front of you. You *do* get some benefit from the way the brain fills in missing details ... that's how a play works. It shows you bare bones such as a chair and a table and a vase, and lets your brain fill in additional details until you see a room in a house. That's Scene Perception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception). The problem is, as detailed in that link under Process and Terminology, Bruner's model, step #3, when we think we know the scene, we stop extrapolating. Combine that effect with visual attention and visual mental imagery being separate, and we have a tendency towards 'what you see is what you get'. Although to be more accurate, it's 'what you think you see is what you get'.

Players can get around this two different ways: Train yourself to make those extra details not on the map part of what your brain fills in automatically, so it becomes part of scene perception. Or take the time to separately envision the scene in your minds eye using visual mental imagery.