3.5 PbP without maps

[Alabenson]

I'd like to attempt to run a pbp game, but I have had no luck creating any encounter maps that could be used in said game. How feasible would it be to run a combat-heavy pbp game without any maps?

[Saintheart]

I'm going to start with a useless answer of "depends, and possibly it might be just as much work to go and find something like OwlRodeo or take screenshots of battle maps, or whatever."

Somewhat more maturely, if you're going to ditch combat maps for the players - and you can, especially for simple combat encounters - then you need to consider two things:

1. How heavily do your players' combat mechanics depend on knowing precisely where people are on a grid map?
2. How good are you at clear written descriptions of what's happening on the field?

Expanding on these:

1. Some characters' combat strategies are tied closely to distances. To take a very crude example, sneak attack: you don't get those lovely bonus d6s unless you're within 30 feet on a ranged attack, and the enemy is either flatfooted or is flanked. So the first thing you'll always get asked in the absence of a combat map by the rogue is "are they within 30 feet" or "can I get behind them"? And the "can I get behind him" question invokes another not-insignificant mechanic, which is the attack of opportunity depending leaving an opponent's threatened square. Some people find AoOs annoying, but they do add something to it. I've played with AoOs and without them, and it does make a difference about how people move around the field, it introduces another decision point.

Another one is Reach weapons: on a standard-ish Reach weapon, the player can smack an enemy within 10 feet but not one that's adjacent, so, again, the question will be "how far away are they?"

It doesn't always matter. Charging characters basically always have to get up in an enemy's face to do damage, so their main combat decision will be . Spellcasters practically never have to worry about range given, well, most spells' range entry. Some thrower builds have to worry about it because of range increment penalties, but most of the time this is a puny -2 or so, especially in close-confines environment like dungeons.

In short, at the very least you have to look at the characters you're faced with and ask yourself not whether they can function in a mapless environment, but rather how you represent those map-dependent qualities in a no-map environment.


2. For more assistance on this question generally, Google up advice about running 'Theatre of the Mind'. However, that won't be precisely applicable either because you're in PbP and making text descriptions. It can be pretty tiring to go through and narratively describe where everything is on a battlefield. Because it's not a FtF environment where people can quickly ask clarifying questions, and the old saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words' is not a bad formula if you're trying to describe something in words to people who probably don't read a lot in their ordinary lives above 158 characters or so. Combat takes a long time in PbP even with maps. If you're going down this path then be prepared to simplify the combat a lot, be a lot less precise on the players when it comes to things like range, and make the combat a lot less about position and more about decision. e.g. the character who has to charge to close to range: "Looking across the battlefield, you can see two ways to get up in the face of these goblins. One is through stony ground that you can't charge through, the other is through smooth, unimpeded ground that's open to arrow fire from the goblins." Things like that. And make sure that you have a clear picture of the battlefield even if the players don't.


That aside, what's the issue with making battlemaps? Is it that they look bad (like most battlemaps, including my own, do) or that you haven't got a program or something available to actually generate one, or what?

[pabelfly]

There are plenty of maps you can steal from various splatbooks and one-shot modules. Failing that, a blank grid with some scribbles for terrain and obstacles usually works well enough.

But let's say you still want to run a game without the players seeing the map. How I've done this is by having the map in front of me, with players and enemies on top of it, and describing the map to the person who could not see the map. I'd also describe the various options to them (eg. you're close enough to charge this person, there's an obstacle in the road, etc.) Worked well enough for the single situation I was in (the player was a low-level charger). I don't think I would do it regularly, or for a character with complex mechanics.

[Amidus Drexel]

It can be time-consuming, but if you put less effort into it it'll be easier!

Some recommendations to speed things up, in the image editing software of your choice (even MS paint has layers now, though there are better free options):

Make a grid layer you can build other maps on top of. Label your rows and columns (I put letters on one side and numbers on the other). You should only have to do this once.
Have a layer for each player's token, and at least one additional layer for the bad guys.
Block terrain out in solid colours, and write your key in text (not as part of the map). If terrain doesn't matter, you can largely skip this step.
Unless you get joy out of spending time making the map, quick and dirty is better than slow and pretty, and your players are unlikely to care.


I posted my battle maps in a google drive document, so players could always check the map via bookmark. It was useful for adding text notes below the map, as well.



I'd like to attempt to run a pbp game, but I have had no luck creating any encounter maps that could be used in said game. How feasible would it be to run a combat-heavy pbp game without any maps?

Some of that depends on your PCs - if they care a lot about precise distances or precise positioning, you'll end up doing quite a bit of extra work to make it happen. If I was going to run 3.5 without a map, I'd stop worrying about precise distances, and look at groups and ranges.

---
Groups
Don't worry about precise positioning of each individual creature on the map - have a list of groups, and their relative ranges.

The party should start as a single group, but let them separate themselves to engage specific groups as needed.

Try not to split the enemies up from their starting groups, if possible (unless the PCs do that deliberately). Definitely merge groups as needed.


Group 1 - 3 goblin archers
- close to group 2
- medium to group 3

Group 2 - 3 hobgoblin warriors, in front of the archers
- close to group 1
- close to group 3

Group 3 - 1 bugbear, the PCs
- close to group 2
- medium to group 1

---
After a few rounds of combat, things might look more like this:

Group 1 - 1 goblin archer, 2 hobgoblin warriors, PC rogue, PC fighter, PC cleric
- medium to group 2

Group 2 - PC wizard
- medium to group 1



Attacks of Opportunity (for movement) - could be important, or not. I'd apply one AoO to anyone moving out of melee range (regardless of how many are in the group they just left), but I wouldn't worry about it otherwise.

Flanking - there are a lot of ways to approach this. You could apply it when you have more PCs in a group than enemies, if multiple PCs attack the same enemy in a round (in melee), or even ask for a tumble / bluff check to get into position first. This mostly concerns the party rogue, though characters with lots of attacks at low bonuses (e.g. monks, totemists, etc.) will probably care too.

Terrain and Cover - You can probably just associate the cover with a group and a range (that is - cover is only effective at certain ranges, not in melee). Difficult terrain could change the time it takes to move from one group/range to another.

AoE Consider applying these effects to everyone in a group, unless the AoE is particularly small, or the group is particularly large. If they want to avoid friendly fire (from PCs in melee), they probably need to hit a smaller percentage of the group - half (rounded up) is probably fair.


---
Ranges

I'm approximating the default ranges for most targeted spells (melee, close, medium, and long). I would tweak those ranges a bit (and have for the purposes of this example), but you could use them as-is too.

Melee (close enough to hit with a melee weapon, regardless of what kind)
Close (within roughly 40ft) - roughly 1 move (or a charge) away from melee range. Ranged sneak attacks should be possible from close range, if the other conditions are met.
Medium (no further than about 120ft away): within longbow range, but outside of charging range for most characters
Long (no further than about 400ft away): at the absolute extremes of combat distances.


Assume that it takes 1 round of movement to change ranges (single/double move for close<->melee, double move for close<->medium, double move or a full-round run action from medium<->long), unless a PC has faster movement of some kind.

A full-round run action should also be able to take you from medium<->melee, if there's nothing in the way.

Assume a PC can usually charge from close range to melee, if there's nothing in the way.

[Aegis013]

I've run 3.5/PF games on these forums for many years, some being very combat heavy without using any maps at all. 100% theater of the mind.

I never had any major issues, though I played fast and loose with positions, AoEs, etc, and tried to always interpret situations in the player's favor if I could.

Battle maps can be nice, but they're not necessary at all.

[Zancloufer]

Talking about without maps do you mean without detailed maps of the exact terrain or just a grid in general?

Either way, I would say a grid is probably pretty important for a combat heavy game but you don't need detailed terrain for the players. I almost never have actual maps in my game, but we still use an actual mat with a grid. Just point out critical things, like obstrutions to movement/LoS, large drops in terrains, walls, etc with what ever you have on hand. I got a box of cheap off brand jenga blocks I use for walls and the such for most combat encounters. Stuff like (off brand) legos, plastic armymen or even little board game tokens can work for players/NPCs/Points of interest. Just describe the terrain roughly and have a few obvious items scattered about for obsticals or intractables so the party has an idea where everything is all the time.

[Powerdork]

Nice avatar.

My impulse is to say, "Charge one of the players with mapping duties, and act as if their posted maps are accurate. Establish clear guidelines for what good maps look like (including such concerns as cover and obstacles, verticality, props, purpose, and level of detail) and work with them to improve maps that do not meet your standard, or provide extra details in your posts." That is a big ask, though.

[Pugwampy]

I'd like to attempt to run a pbp game, but I have had no luck creating any encounter maps that could be used in said game. How feasible would it be to run a combat-heavy pbp game without any maps?

You mean map tiles ?

[threefivearchve]

My advice would be: Use a "marching order" or "rank" system akin to what is used in Darkest Dungeon. For flanking, simply require a Tumble check to get into position, then they gain the "flanking" condition against that monster. This would be for rogues at least. For skirmish? I'd say pretend it doesn't exist.

On the upside, fighters will likely get to full attack more, since you won't be tracking movement. On the downside, area-of-effect spells might be a bit overpowered. But their downside is usually mitigated anyway by firing them at a wall or something.

My first two 3.5 adventures as a player were done without a battle grid or even miniatures. Just rolling for attacks and saying what we were doing and seeing pictures of the monsters from the Monster Manual and being freaked out by how weird looking they were.