Theater of Mind vs Theater of Grid

[Trickster]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?

While descriptions go with the grid, I mean solely descriptions.

With only only descriptions, you can play anywhere without lugging around extra materials and it brings the players in more (In my experience atleast)

With the grid on the other hand, it interacts with combat system much better, but slows the game down when I have to redraw a new area

[stoutstien]

IMO the reason why we play games like d&d rather than just grip-based war game is that it is narrative focused. This doesn't mean there isn't a place for grid based situations but the second that the grid becomes a larger focus than the narrative portion something's gone wrong

The grid is meant to supplement and make gameplay more fluent so the second that it's no longer doing that Id ditch it.

Personally my default method is zones because it's provides the maximum amount of references with the lowest amount of overhead.

[Segev]

You can also go gridless with just tokens and a ruler. One inch is one square is five feet, typically.

Theater of the mind works for relatively uncomplicated combats, but the more participants there are and the more important position becomes, the harder it is to use as you wind up with no two people sharing the same mental model of the combat.

You definitely can run D&D combat with it, but the DM has to be rigorous in describing everything and repeating the descriptions as each player's turn comes up in order to make sure the player isn't trying to walk across a lake of lava because he didn't know it was between him and the goblin that is chanting over a cauldron.

[Demonslayer666]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?

While descriptions go with the grid, I mean solely descriptions.

With only only descriptions, you can play anywhere without lugging around extra materials and it brings the players in more (In my experience atleast)

With the grid on the other hand, it interacts with combat system much better, but slows the game down when I have to redraw a new area

Both.

Use TotM for easy or simple combats, like when there are few combatants.

Use the grid for important or complex battles. This actually saves time rather than reexplaining where everyone is located. When someone leaves the map, the combat is usually over anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

False dichotomy. Demonslayer666 covered the rest of it.

[Theodoxus]

Totally depends on the players. I've tried TotM, and it inevitably, no matter how well or poorly I explain the combat scene, devolves into 'but I thought you said xyz!'. The absolute frustration I've had with at least 1 player in every table I've tried or participated with TotM has caused me to ban it in session zero. It can literally be a combat with 1 monster and 3 players and at least one person will completely bollocks where the critter is and how close his teammates are and then fireball or burning hands or whirlwind or whatever his party and it potentially (because it totally did once) ends up in PvP.

So, I appreciate folks who like splitting up combats between the two styles. I wish I could play at your tables. But from my experience, TotM can die in a grease fire and never be spoken about again. It's just that bad.

[stoutstien]

Totally depends on the players. I've tried TotM, and it inevitably, no matter how well or poorly I explain the combat scene, devolves into 'but I thought you said xyz!'. The absolute frustration I've had with at least 1 player in every table I've tried or participated with TotM has caused me to ban it in session zero. It can literally be a combat with 1 monster and 3 players and at least one person will completely bollocks where the critter is and how close his teammates are and then fireball or burning hands or whirlwind or whatever his party and it potentially (because it totally did once) ends up in PvP.

So, I appreciate folks who like splitting up combats between the two styles. I wish I could play at your tables. But from my experience, TotM can die in a grease fire and never be spoken about again. It's just that bad.

I mean you shouldn't inadvertently let them hit their allies regardless of what style you are using in the same vein you don't make players fall in a hole just because they accidentally move on to it in a grid when there's an obviously clear path available.

[Skrum]

Grids for combat. If the combat is a simple one, I resolve it via skill checks and narration. But if initiative is getting rolled, i.e. it's a meaningful fight where the characters will expend resources, take damage, or have some other objective, I'm using a grid every time. 5e combat is too specific to resolve in a satisfactory way without a grid IMO.

[Waazraath]

In line with the folks above: yeah, I would also say: it depends, we do Theatre of the mind with the more simple and straightforward combats and use a grid for the more complex ones. The problem we keep having though is that what is "simple" and "complex" depends from player to player. We have some folks who without any problem visualize combats with multiple different types of opponents in a 3d environment, and at the other hand players who sometimes can't keep track of combat in a 5x5 room with a bunch of orcs ("I thought orc number three was at the other side of the room"). If we use too much TotM it reduces those players combat effectiveness and fun.

When not using the grid, now we make small sketches of the situation before combat, as a kind of compromise.

[Blatant Beast]

I'm curious how much preference is tied to how one learned the game?
My friends that learned to play in 3e, seem to primarily prefer Grid over freeform.

I played old school Chainmail, before playing D&D, so TotM for RPGS, on some level is something I am comfortable with.

[sithlordnergal]

I personally use grids for everything, but that's because I tend to fill maps with a lot of different traps and environmental hazards. As a result, positioning and movement tend to be extremely important. Like lets say you have a 10 foot wide, 25 foot long hallway. The left side might have a 5 by 5 pit trap hidden 10 feet down the hallway, while the right side has what is essentially a poisoned bear trap 20 feet down. Its a lot easier to know who activated which trap, and where the rest of the party is when a trap is activated, with a grid than it is Theater of the Mind. I can just tell everyone to freeze and not move their character, and then resolve the trap. It also helps the players, because I can know who is close to a trap and give them a chance to spot it.

And my battle maps can be just as trap filled, so positioning and movement are important there too. If a combat encounter has traps and hazards, I will have players map out their exact path on the grid to see if they run into a hazard, even if they know the hazard is there. heck, even with Theater of the Mind I'll have them describe their exact route just in case they accidentally step onto something. Though I always make sure to clarify exactly where known dangers are.


I did start in 3.5, and my very first game featured a pit trap that a player stumbled into that dropped the floor out from under me. Aaand my favorite two adventures to play in and run are Tomb of Horrors and Tomb of Annihilation because I love the traps and dungeon delving.


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1036194499950546997/1234684118986522634/image.png?ex=664ca771&is=664b55f1&hm=f300a262eab9e91c6a2480c97c31919f995c2815b0546cb ba38b842c702d7cd6&

[Kane0]

I prefer theatre of the mind for relatively simple combats, where there isn't much in the way of special maneuvering, hazardous AoEs, or complicated lines of fire. The sorts of combats that are present as a narrative beat or minor resource attrition and aren't meant to take a lot of time or effort.

The grid comes out (and I use hexes) when there is important, dangerous stuff happening that requires tactical decision-making. I still want the fight to go fast and smooth, which the grid will immediately counter just by existing and prompting that chess-playing mentality, but it saves painstakingly keeping track of and reminding everyone of positions and effects which would be much worse. So it's the lesser of two evils.

What I definitely *don't* want is an entire dungeon being drawn out on the table, which leads directly to moving inch by inch almost in initiative order through the entire dungeon. It *drags*. I have a whiteboard for mud-mapping and initiative tracking, use it.

[sithlordnergal]

What I definitely *don't* want is an entire dungeon being drawn out on the table, which leads directly to moving inch by inch almost in initiative order through the entire dungeon. It *drags*. I have a whiteboard for mud-mapping and initiative tracking, use it.

...You would not enjoy my dungeons XD

Most rooms have 1 to 2 traps, and a single hallway can have a complicated trap in the middle, and two smaller traps off to the side. My players fear closed doors and "empty" rooms.

[Kane0]

...You would not enjoy my dungeons XD

Most rooms have 1 to 2 traps, and a single hallway can have a complicated trap in the middle, and two smaller traps off to the side. My players fear closed doors and "empty" rooms.

Which is fine if you're going into deathtrap dungeon or whatever and everyone is aware the place is riddled with hazards they need to be on the lookout for. Your average natural cave & tunnel system that goblins have started nesting in? Moving between chambers can be narrated, even if there is one or two items of interest for the party to interact with, like traps.

[stoutstien]

I can't see the advantage of grids when it comes to traps unless your map is so detailed it contains the clues necessary for not just screwed up game of battleship.

You still end up having to use your words over the actual grid to give your player the information they need.

[Witty Username]

I would add you can use maps without a strict grid, if you just want a sense of space.

This can also be handy if you want a bit more free form, less interested then specific space or what being shoved a foot means in a 5 ft. System.

I think of maps and grids as tools, use them when they serve a purpose. Otherwise descriptions are sufficient.

Also it can convey different moods, theater of the mind may make sense for a chaotic bar fight, less because of complexity and more awareness of what is going on generally.
Hidden information is difficult to do on a grid.

One is not 'better' than another so much as they have different use cases.

[LudicSavant]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?

While descriptions go with the grid, I mean solely descriptions.

With only only descriptions, you can play anywhere without lugging around extra materials and it brings the players in more (In my experience atleast)

With the grid on the other hand, it interacts with combat system much better, but slows the game down when I have to redraw a new area

They've each got their pros and cons. Playing on a grid is a lot harder if you're gaming in the back seat on a road trip, for instance.

[sithlordnergal]

Which is fine if you're going into deathtrap dungeon or whatever and everyone is aware the place is riddled with hazards they need to be on the lookout for. Your average natural cave & tunnel system that goblins have started nesting in? Moving between chambers can be narrated, even if there is one or two items of interest for the party to interact with, like traps.

Every dungeon has the potential to be deathtrap dungeons. >=D Goblin cave? Best be ready for hidden caltrops that'll give you diseases, baskets of insects that are set to break and cover you in swarms, some basic dart traps to poison you, probably a simple wooden bridge rigged to fall, ect. Heck, even an empty cave is probably gonna have some mold that poisons you, mushrooms that deafen you and alerts everyone, loose rocks to fall on you, and what not.

...my players say I like traps too much. I cannot disagree.


I can't see the advantage of grids when it comes to traps unless your map is so detailed it contains the clues necessary for not just screwed up game of battleship.

You still end up having to use your words over the actual grid to give your player the information they need.

I find it handy because when I don't use a map, I find other players like to say "Hold up, you know I was 15 feet away from the guy who set off the trap, right?" despite them rping as if they were right next to each other. As for combat, encounters tend to be complicated where your exact position might be the difference between a Glyph of Warding with Counterspell going off and stopping your spell and you getting to cast.

[Sigreid]

It depends mostly on group preferences, of course. Personally, for smaller encounters with lower numbers of participants in a more limited space, I'd rather just TotM. For bigger engagements, either large numbers of participants or a large and/or complex field, having a map grid is helpful.

[Darth Credence]

I'm going to be the weird guy and let everyone know that when we've done Theater of the Mind recently, it has been with more difficult combats, not easier ones. We're at level 16 at this point, and combats are becoming a bit over the top. A couple of recent ones were resolved on a grid, because it was a relatively simple combat in a room. One that was TotM had to go to that because there was just no way to do it on a grid, unless I painted 1" squares all over my basement (and now that I think of it, I might paint 1" squares all over my basement).

Players were in the Astral. A mentor NPC was there, basically trying to not die yet, and they wanted to check up on him. He was fleeing from a githyanki ship through an Astral asteroid field. They teleported in, got similar area, and the only similar area is a different point in the same field. Now, they are moving at ridiculous speeds due to intelligence*3+haste+longstrider, they were making good use of dimension door, the spelljammer ship was moving fast, all being done in an asteroid field. I had mechanics for rogue asteroids flying through, as well as figuring that a mirage arcane can end up making the equivalent of a 1/2 mile diameter asteroid appear since that will give you the surface area. We had a blast, leaving the minis ouot of it because how do you have minis and the equivalent of a half a mile wide asteroid flying through?

[Schwann145]

Grid is superior to TotM in every way except ease of use. The biggest reason for this is that no one imagines things the same way someone else does, no matter how particularly they are described.

Grid play is much more difficult (requires a ton of set-up and re-setting) and expensive (you never have to pay for TotM but you certainly have to pay for miniatures, terrain, etc; even if all you use is a marker and grid map that still costs you), but the results are always better, because there will never be confusion on whether something is in range or what the elevation is here or there, or what the structure actually looks like - it's all right there to be seen and measured in real-time.

TotM requires nothing and can be done anywhere and on the fly, which is great, but if we're being honest, a lot of your gameplay time will be dedicated to, "wait, but I thought..." and other such issues.

[Tawmis]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?
While descriptions go with the grid, I mean solely descriptions.
With only only descriptions, you can play anywhere without lugging around extra materials and it brings the players in more (In my experience atleast)
With the grid on the other hand, it interacts with combat system much better, but slows the game down when I have to redraw a new area

99.99999% of my games I run are theater of mind.
I enjoy it because it allows my players to see how it might look in their own minds, rather than the grid of a map.
This also allows for when a player asks, "Hey is there a tree close to where I am that I can try to quietly climb and see what's ahead?"
And I can do things like, "Sure. Let's... roll me a Nature Check. DC 10, since you're near the woods."
Players can ask me things about the environment that I can just place there, via theater of the mind, if needed compared to a map grid where the players can't really "help build" the scene.

[Easy e]

Controversial take ahead... maybe?

What is the purpose of combat in a TTRPG? It is a point of conflict that the PCs need to overcome, and the chosen method is violence. Therefore, the only real question is, do the PCs overcome the challenge or not? Secondary questions are if there are complications that occur when overcoming the challenge like injury, resource loss, death, important NPC dies, collateral damage, etc.

Therefore, whether it is Grid or TotM is irrelevant. The real question is why does the combat matter to the players and the characters?

Now, with that aside I am sure you will be shocked that my preference is ToTM I personally think, ToTM allows for more interesting combats because you are not constrained by the physical. I know a lot of people really get hung up on distance and such, but after playing a lot of TTRPGs I realized that those spatial elements are relative. On a grid my observation is players spend too much time thinking about the optimal instead of thinking about the goal of the combat.

[da newt]

As a player I prefer a grid so I can plan and make to most of PC's AOEs, ranges, cover etc and it also keeps things fair - there is much less fudging when the grid determines if you are 30' or 35' away.

When I DM I like theater of the mind - it allows me to be generous for my Players and keep things moving more quickly as they can ask 'can I reach bad guy x with my crossbow?' and I can very quickly say 'sure.' Or 'how many bad guys can I get w/ a 20' radius?' and I can very quickly go '2 or you can get 3 and one of your allies.' With the right party, I can keep things moving quickly and there is less analysis paralysis.

There is no one right answer - they both have strengths and weaknesses and everyone's opinions count.

[Catullus64]

I prefer theater of the mind where possible, because I enjoy the way it keeps people's focus on the narrative of the fight rather than on representational elements. I accept, however, that some players just aren't wired to be able to keep complex spatial relations in their head.

Some game systems support TotM a lot better than D&D 5e, that's for sure. It's actually why I've come to like AD&D a lot despite it being before my time.

[KorvinStarmast]

What is the purpose of combat in a TTRPG? It is a point of conflict that the PCs need to overcome, and the chosen method is violence. Sometimes. Here are two situations that resolve that conflict without violence.

A bunch of skeletons block a bridge. Cleric turns undead, and all of the skeletons flee. Party proceeds to objective (and doesn't have to engage in combat, which in some cases (doom clock) is beneficial.

Two Minotaurs obstruct the party's progress towards an ancient tomb they wish to loot. Cause fear is cast (saves not made) and the frightened Minotaurs are no longer an obstacle to their progress.

Pass without trace works there also.

Sometimes, though, it comes to blows since saving throws can succeed also.


Therefore, the only real question is, do the PCs overcome the challenge or not?
Not the only, but certainly an important one.

Secondary questions are if there are complications that occur when overcoming the challenge like injury, resource loss, death, important NPC dies, collateral damage, etc.
Yes. Good point.


Therefore, whether it is Grid or TotM is irrelevant. The real question is why does the combat matter to the players and the characters? Pretty good assessment, and also applies to our Blades in the Dark game.


Now, with that aside I am sure you will be shocked that my preference is ToTM I personally think, ToTM allows for more interesting combats because you are not constrained by the physical. I know a lot of people really get hung up on distance and such, but after playing a lot of TTRPGs I realized that those spatial elements are relative. On a grid my observation is players spend too much time thinking about the optimal instead of thinking about the goal of the combat. Each group of players, heck, each player, will have a different approach to that. I've see folks on the grid not really pay attention to the optimal.

[Easy e]

Oh yeah, there are a lot of ways to solve an issue without violence. However, they typically do not need a grid. There is not a grid for Social or intrigue. ToTM works well for Social pillar stuff.

Exploration? Maybe a grid is helpful, maybe ToTM is enough. I know some tables make the players map for themselves! However, this question seemed to focus on combat so I tried to stay in the ballpark of the spirit of the question.

I agree that all players are different, and their reaction to a grid coming out will vary a lot. In my experience, I see more people try to lean into the Optimal Tactics and analysis/paralysis. That doesn't mean it is a truism for every player or table. However, it has led to my own personal bias of ToTM over Grid play when I GM.

However, different GMs at my own table have different preferences and the Grid is a common feature when I am the player.

[Schwann145]

I think the first time someone drops a fireball, you realize how valuable Grid is, even from a narrative point of view.

Basically no one is going to be prepared to deal with what all happens in that 20f radius, on the fly, in their head. Cover? Unattended objects? Spacial relationships between characters, npcs, enemies, etc? It's *too much* for TotM, and it's only one casting of one spell.

Sure, you can ignore 90% of the details and just fudge it - "sure, you hit X, Y, or Z targets with that fireball. Moving on." But is that actually good for the gameplay? It's definitely not good for the narrative. It's only more expedient, and you're only picking it exactly because TotM can't handle it well.

[stoutstien]

I think the first time someone drops a fireball, you realize how valuable Grid is, even from a narrative point of view.

Basically no one is going to be prepared to deal with what all happens in that 20f radius, on the fly, in their head. Cover? Unattended objects? Spacial relationships between characters, npcs, enemies, etc? It's *too much* for TotM, and it's only one casting of one spell.

Sure, you can ignore 90% of the details and just fudge it - "sure, you hit X, Y, or Z targets with that fireball. Moving on." But is that actually good for the gameplay? It's definitely not good for the narrative. It's only more expedient, and you're only picking it exactly because TotM can't handle it well.

It's not that hard if you describe actions focused on intent rather than trying to use relative positioning that you would get with a grid. You know who's near each other or behind cover because you said so the last time they acted or when the scene was set. You either show that the enemies are spreading out to prevent more than 2 are in range of a single fireball by moving each one to exact squares and double checking with some form of measuring or you just say that with with words with the same results.

Grids only subtract from narrative power because you are relying on it to describe factors in place of words. Which is fine but there is diminishing returns on both the ability to prevent players from becoming detached from the character as anything more than a tactical board game token and the ability to narrate stuff that isn't on the map because they won't be listening. Got squares to count to maximize effective action usage.

Now there are plenty of situations that you need a grid with 5e. There are just too many features that only work with it(which means the book is lying when they say you don't need one in some form) but the point where you need a grid to function isn't due to aoes or even multiple enemies. The potential length of the scene is the key.

[Imbalance]

I'm a toy collector, so...:smallcool:

However, even though a picture says a thousand words, it cannot say them all, not even in 3d. No battlemap will ever properly convey smells, sounds, or atmospheric conditions, nor can the largest dragon miniature illicit the same fear as seen from the player's perspective above that their character surely knows from their gridded point of view. You've got to tell them.

...so, both.

[Tanarii]

Both. But I generally landed on Theatre of the White Board for most combats.

Theatre of the Mind doesn't put players in a mindset of tactical board mini-game as much. Players tend to envision the details of scene around them instead of thinking of themselves as a piece on a mat. It doesn't suffer very much from a combat swoosh. It's blindingly faster when the situation is relatively simple and there won't be much confusion about distances or positioning. It's fairly horrendous for incredibly complex fights or when the players experience constant confusion about distances or positioning and cannot clearly envision the situation their characters as supposed to have right in front of them. If they cross the fog-of-war threshold and can no longer envision where enemies/allies are or the overall layout, it becomes a game of twenty questions at the start of every turn trying to re-establish basic information.

Theatre of the Grid reverses all that. In particular, set up time creates a huge combat swoosh, and it almost always puts players in a tactical board mini-game mindset, thinking of themselves as a piece on a mat and not envisioning details. Players take longer resolving turns in simple situations. But when it gets complex enough, it's actually much faster to have a grid.

Theatre of the white board tries to take the best of both worlds. Quick sketch of the environment and starting positions of everyone, then move on to descriptive action. If absolutely necessary wipe and update stuff that's changed. It's relatively quick to minimized combat swoosh, it's a visual prompt to minimize overly fog-of-war confusion, but it's not overly gridded with minis to pull the players out of character and into game piece.

[stoutstien]

Both. But I generally landed on Theatre of the White Board for most combats.

Theatre of the Mind doesn't put players in a mindset of tactical board mini-game as much. Players tend to envision the details of scene around them instead of thinking of themselves as a piece on a mat. It doesn't suffer very much from a combat swoosh. It's blindingly faster when the situation is relatively simple and there won't be much confusion about distances or positioning. It's fairly horrendous for incredibly complex fights or when the players experience constant confusion about distances or positioning and cannot clearly envision the situation their characters as supposed to have right in front of them. If they cross the fog-of-war threshold and can no longer envision where enemies/allies are or the overall layout, it becomes a game of twenty questions at the start of every turn trying to re-establish basic information.

Theatre of the Grid reverses all that. In particular, set up time creates a huge combat swoosh, and it almost always puts players in a tactical board mini-game mindset, thinking of themselves as a piece on a mat and not envisioning details. Players take longer resolving turns in simple situations. But when it gets complex enough, it's actually much faster to have a grid.

Theatre of the white board tries to take the best of both worlds. Quick sketch of the environment and starting positions of everyone, then move on to descriptive action. If absolutely necessary wipe and update stuff that's changed. It's relatively quick to minimized combat swoosh, it's a visual prompt to minimize overly fog-of-war confusion, but it's not overly gridded with minis to pull the players out of character and into game piece.

Aye. I also find it helpful to draw the key environment features from the same view as the PCs would see it rather than a birds eye POV. I just think it makes stuff click faster if you also describe the environment from that lens.

[Kish]

Theater of Grid, very strongly. If it's strictly a noncombat scene there's usually no great need to know where everyone is standing/sitting/lying, but it never weakens my immersion to do so, and often shatters my immersion not to (in addition to being just maddening for actual combat when everyone is Schrodinger's Distance from each other).

[Tanarii]

Aye. I also find it helpful to draw the key environment features from the same view as the PCs would see it rather than a birds eye POV. I just think it makes stuff click faster if you also describe the environment from that lens.Nice. :smallbiggrin:

There's a reason old school modules often included handouts. Visual depiction (be it handout or grid) can affect player assumptions about the scene in ways that words often don't.


Schrodinger's DistanceCatchy, I like it. Far better than my Fog of War reference, which isn't really the same thing anyway. Maybe Schrödinger's Positioning instead?

[Segev]

As to the "combat swoosh" of setting things up, lately one of our players has gotten very much into modeling environments and likes to set up even non-
Combat scenes. We have used them for positioning and visualization, and it does mean that it is already there or the change in scene was going to happen anyway when combat breaks out.

I also have never seen players not go into tactical combat mode when combat starts, even when using theater of the mind. Across many different gaming groups.

[Tanarii]

As to the "combat swoosh" of setting things up, lately one of our players has gotten very much into modeling environments and likes to set up even non-
Combat scenes. We have used them for positioning and visualization, and it does mean that it is already there or the change in scene was going to happen anyway when combat breaks out.Interesting. I ran mostly dungeon explorations. If I'd had the full dungeon layout already this would certainly have been the case. But combat absolutely could come out of nowhere and I wasn't about to spend the time mapping it all. Especially because that would have put the players even more in board game mode.


I also have never seen players not go into tactical combat mode when combat starts, even when using theater of the mind. Across many different gaming groups.I've only rarely seen it not put players in board game mode, across (after 40 years) several hundred groups. It's a very noticeable difference to me.

Tactical is possibly the wrong word for it. Because it's certainly possible to be extremely tactical in Theatre of the mind. But thinking of your character as a piece instead of a character? Absolutely. So much so that whenever a player asks or does something that isn't obvious from looking at a top down grid but would be if they were a character looking at the environment through eyes it jumps out.

[Segev]

Interesting. I ran mostly dungeon explorations. If I'd had the full dungeon layout already this would certainly have been the case. But combat absolutely could come out of nowhere and I wasn't about to spend the time mapping it all. Especially because that would have put the players even more in board game mode.When we're not in a dungeon, we usually have a big set piece scene we're doing a lot in, and then the next scene is anotehr set piece, as we aren't often moving around between scenes rapidly. If we're traveling, it's usually through a particular kind of environment, so the DM describes some common features and the player sets up the scene for something "typical" of where we're going through. Kind-of like the runs through the same quarry set in Doctor Who's old stuff. The DM might have a particular feature to add to the scene when a fight actually breaks out, but that's not much longer than it takes us to roll and tabulate initiatives to set up.

Also, I've taken to, when I'm DMing, trying to go through the descriptions of likely areas of a module I'm running that the party will encounter, and use some AI art tools to generate visuals to try to replace the boxed text. Which means I can just share the image with the party rather than having to read the scene description, and if they need a reminder of what htey see, they just look at it again. And it helps with the description-based focus lens giving away things in the same manner that a discolored bit of ground told you that the cartoon characters would fall through it in old cartoons.


I've only rarely seen it not put players in board game mode, across (after 40 years) several hundred groups. It's a very noticeable difference to me.

Tactical is possibly the wrong word for it. Because it's certainly possible to be extremely tactical in Theatre of the mind. But thinking of your character as a piece instead of a character? Absolutely. So much so that whenever a player asks or does something that isn't obvious from looking at a top down grid but would be if they were a character looking at the environment through eyes it jumps out.
Ah, that's kind-of the opposite of what I thought you meant, sorry.

I have ALSO never seen players treat their PCs like game pieces just because they're figures on a board. So that's interesting/weird to me that your players shift from caring about their characters as characters to thinking of them as (expendable?) pieces in a game that they aren't invested in anymore just based on whether they're able to see tokens representing their PCs in a modeled environment.

[tamuraakemi]

My opinion: Theatre of the Mind is usually best suited to pretty simple encounters, and ends up restricting what tools people actually want to play...

A fireball spell, for instance, is going to have a pretty obvious impact on a tactical "game-board" style combat with represented positions and such, but in ToM things like that end up with players asking the DM so many questions trying to figure out if what they want to do is any useful: players with characters with those sort of tools often take longer to act in a theatre-of-the-mind combat than those without, in my experience, if the describer isn't totally on top of things.

This ends up cycling back into people not taking those options that need questions, taking sleep over grease and so on, just so they can ask fewer questions and take less time. (Of course, someone like a crossbowperson fighter has a much simpler time in theatre of the mind, so party composition may change this.)

As for roleplaying, I don't really think theatre of the mind improves it or that grids destroy it. My groups I've been in, player and GM, haven't really had any more issues with playing their characters as characters on a grid than with verbal description: the win-at-all-costs sort tend to do the same thing whether they have a representative figure or not.

[Tanarii]

There are rules for how AOEs work in TotM in the DMG.

They aren't good rules. But they're there to cut down on 20 questions.

Of course, most games that truly want you to play TotM have actual distance and position rules to accommodate it. Commonly things like zones or even just PB/close/medium/far for distance designating.

[tchntm43]

My take on most DM things like this is that you should play to your strengths, there's no one right answer to suit all tables. I print and paint all my own miniatures for my game because it's something I love doing, and every time I bring out a new monster, everyone wants to pass it around to look at. I put a lot of work into digital maps - no, not just battle maps, but exploration maps, too, for the larger dungeons.

If, on the other hand, you have a way with words that causes the players to really see in their minds the scenes around their characters as you describe them, then by all means, go with that.

[Tanarii]

Clear communication of critical details is what's needed. Not painting a picture in the minds eye. Doing the former should lead to the latter, then you can start thinking about embellishments.

And that's why so many folks like battlemats and minis. They short-cut having to clearly communicate things like positioning and distance, and if you have the right details some terrain aspects.

Unfortunately (to me) they tend to cause players to overly focus on those things, and not think about other options that don't arise merely from position and distance and (IMX) fairly minimal terrain details. I can't count the number of times it never even occurred to players they could flip a table for cover or interact with items on bookshelves/benches or jump over/onto something, because top down perspective and "fixed" map.

The same way that having concrete actions in combat can lead to not thinking of innovating things to do. (Although that's exacerbated by DMs that are afraid and always make them useless compared to "I attack".)

[Segev]

Clear communication of critical details is what's needed. Not painting a picture in the minds eye. Doing the former should lead to the latter, then you can start thinking about embellishments.

And that's why so many folks like battlemats and minis. They short-cut having to clearly communicate things like positioning and distance, and if you have the right details some terrain aspects.

Unfortunately (to me) they tend to cause players to overly focus on those things, and not think about other options that don't arise merely from position and distance and (IMX) fairly minimal terrain details. I can't count the number of times it never even occurred to players they could flip a table for cover or interact with items on bookshelves/benches or jump over/onto something, because top down perspective and "fixed" map.

The same way that having concrete actions in combat can lead to not thinking of innovating things to do. (Although that's exacerbated by DMs that are afraid and always make them useless compared to "I attack".)

In my experience, the players who won't flip a table for cover in map play will not do so in mind's eye play, either. In fact, without the table visibly there, I find players are less likely to remember there IS a table.

[Darth Credence]

Clear communication of critical details is what's needed. Not painting a picture in the minds eye. Doing the former should lead to the latter, then you can start thinking about embellishments.

And that's why so many folks like battlemats and minis. They short-cut having to clearly communicate things like positioning and distance, and if you have the right details some terrain aspects.

Unfortunately (to me) they tend to cause players to overly focus on those things, and not think about other options that don't arise merely from position and distance and (IMX) fairly minimal terrain details. I can't count the number of times it never even occurred to players they could flip a table for cover or interact with items on bookshelves/benches or jump over/onto something, because top down perspective and "fixed" map.

The same way that having concrete actions in combat can lead to not thinking of innovating things to do. (Although that's exacerbated by DMs that are afraid and always make them useless compared to "I attack".)

And the players I have seen interact with terrain and things much more if there are physical representations than not. I've done the description of a throne room, complete with throne, tapestries, chandeliers, columns, statues, the works. Then a fight broke out. They promptly forgot everything that was in the room except the columns, which they used for cover. A similar room I had everything laid out on the map, including physical representations of things. Those players used things - the throne was overturned, tapestries were pulled down on enemies, and a kobold kept weaving between statue legs to avoid people. Now, it was partially due to the players, I'm sure, but it certainly seemed like they had a much easier time working out how to use the environment when it was clearly laid out and no one had to question what was there and available. (To the specific of flipping over a table - I have a lot of physical terrain bits, and my players will reach onto the map and flip tables on their sides for cover.) This is why I always use a map and terrain on things that are small enough to do it. TotM is useful for me when battles become larger than what can fit on my table.

[Easy e]

When I play ToTM, I don't lay-out the room except for the barest descriptions. You are in a Throne Room , there are X exits, and you see Y enemies. I may set a lone condition such as it is dark, or the surfaces are slick, etc. Nothing exotic or too detailed as I let people's imaginations do the work for them.

Everything else is built as we play. If a player wants to get behind a table, there is one available nearby. Another wants to swing from a chandelier, one is around. They want to tear down a tapestry and use it to cover an invisible foe? Sure, one is close at hand. Do they want to grab the religious icon around the neck of the baddie and twirl him around with it? Sure, he's wearing one. You want to hit all three of the baddies with a fireball? How about two, one is out of range closing in on your companion.

In ToTM, you should not rigidly set the parameters of the battle, instead the scene should morph to the needs of the players. It can be a very permissive environment. That is the advantage of ToTM over Grid, you can make it conform to what you want. In this case, space is relative and it is exactly what it needs to be at the time based on player intent and the needs of the game.

I am sure this will shock some folks. In my experience, people with LESS experience have an advantage as they are willing to lean into the cinematics, while experienced folks have some challenges as they struggle to understand what buttons to push when because they are trained on grids.

[Darth Credence]

When I play ToTM, I don't lay-out the room except for the barest descriptions. You are in a Throne Room , there are X exits, and you see Y enemies. I may set a lone condition such as it is dark, or the surfaces are slick, etc. Nothing exotic or too detailed as I let people's imaginations do the work for them.

Everything else is built as we play. If a player wants to get behind a table, there is one available nearby. Another wants to swing from a chandelier, one is around. They want to tear down a tapestry and use it to cover an invisible foe? Sure, one is close at hand. Do they want to grab the religious icon around the neck of the baddie and twirl him around with it? Sure, he's wearing one. You want to hit all three of the baddies with a fireball? How about two, one is out of range closing in on your companion.

In ToTM, you should not rigidly set the parameters of the battle, instead the scene should morph to the needs of the players. It can be a very permissive environment. That is the advantage of ToTM over Grid, you can make it conform to what you want. In this case, space is relative and it is exactly what it needs to be at the time based on player intent and the needs of the game.

I am sure this will shock some folks. In my experience, people with LESS experience have an advantage as they are willing to lean into the cinematics, while experienced folks have some challenges as they struggle to understand what buttons to push when because they are trained on grids.

I get that. But let's say the room is 30'x30' with two exits on opposite walls and 4 orcs. Player 1 wants a 10' long, 5' wide table they can overturn and hide behind. Player 2 wants some bookcases they can overturn on the enemy. Player 3 wants a chandelier to swing from (good thing you didn't specify room height). Player 4 wants tapestries to pull down. Player 5 wants to have some chairs around to pick up and beat the orcs with. At what point do you say, sorry, there just isn't enough room in here for all of those things to exist? Does player 2 get their bookcases, and player 4 gets left out because there is no room for the tapestries? Do you just say anything goes, and having 8000 cubic feet of stuff in a 9000 cubic foot room is OK even though there would be no room to maneuver? Does the room just flex in size to whatever people want, regardless of how that can mean that this room, sandwiched in the established 50 feet between two other rooms is 200' wide? As more and more stuff to interact with gets thrown into the room, does it expand as you go? When the original 30'x30' room becomes 200' wide, does it still make sense that all of the enemies in it were standing in fireball formation? Does it still make sense that there are only 4 orcs in what has become a cavernous room full of enough furniture to supply a palace? Is the player who thinks the entire setup is ridiculous because we're effectively playing cops and robbers in kindergarten instead of interacting with what is there "struggling to understand", rather than just wanting to play a game that isn't a step removed from Calvinball?

[Gurgeh]

Seems like that player's just made up their mind to be a nuisance at that point. Probably not a good fit for the game.

[Easy e]

I get that. But let's say the room is 30'x30' with two exits on opposite walls and 4 orcs.

The opening issue was stating the room was 30x30. Instead, I focus on small, large, etc. More impressions than actuals. Therefore, it can flex a bit, or constrain as needed. The room is simply as big as it needs to be. So player A goes for a bookcase, sure. Next up in Initiative tries a tapestry, but the DM says "Nah, book cases because this is a small room." They then do something else. Realistically, you typically only have a handful of players that want to do something other than push a button on their sheet though.

Now granted, players in this style of ToTM play need to be okay with GM fiat in some cases, but generally they are the ones dictating the environment so there is give-and-take. The GM may say, well-since Player A is throwing a tapestry over an orc, and B is toppling bookshelves on another, then they can not all be targeted by a fireball, one-or-the-other. Which do you choose? Or, since this is a small room, sure you can hit them all, but might also hit a friendly. What do you choose? Some players reject this level of GM Fiat in their games.

As I said, veteran players* (which I am assuming you are) have the hardest time with this spatial irregularity, because that is not how we were brought up in the hobby. We expect a square to be 10 x 10, and the rooms in the map have to match-up with the map we are drawing, and the map the GM is looking at. We turn to board games, CRPGs, and Wargames as our source for this is "How it is done".

What if I told you.... there was no map so the room doesn't need to fit anywhere? ToTM should focus more on "nodes" (or "zones", "encounters", "scenes", what-have-you) rather than you go 10 feet forward, then take a left and go 15 more feet, and then a right for 20 feet at a 15 degree incline, and now you are in the Room marked 12 on the map. If I am going ToTM route, than I am going 100% FULL ToTM and leaning into Movies, Films, and TV as the source for "How it is done" instead of the more traditional methods.

Honestly folks that prefer Grid should focus on Grid, and those who don't shouldn't. Many times, it is the DM preference that sets the tone and players either agree to it or not.

The challenge is when you have both types of players at the table. I have found Grid players usually end up getting the grid. Not 100% sure why though .

[Darth Credence]

I've seen that done, too. I've been part of a campaign where it was all TotM, and the DM didn't have a map prepared. One of the players mapped as we went. It was completely incoherent - rooms that should have attached to other rooms didn't, sometimes you warped around several rooms to get to another one, stuff like that. The mapper complained. The DM switched up their next dungeon - now, everything went in a straight line. We ended up in a dungeon that was about 50' wide and a mile long.

If this works for you, great. But I take issue with the idea that veteran players "struggle to understand it". The players I was with and I understood what he was doing just fine. We just disagreed that it made for a satisfying experience because it did not fit together well. And we aren't even the type to worry about how episode 128 of a TV show contradicts a background detail from episode 17. We would just like to know that if someone creates a map out of what the DM describes and it ends up with two rooms attached to each other, then you can walk through the door and go from one to another, and that was absolutely not the case.

Movies and TV shows still keep at least that level of continuity if they are worth anything. If you are watching a movie and the rooms that are clearly connected are somehow not, it almost certainly means there is something in story going on to explain it, and that is supposed to be something you pick up on. If not, then it is probably a bad movie, and an error on the part of the people making it. We certainly wouldn't say to people watching it that they just have too much experience watching movies and so struggle to understand why space being warped around this room is not plot-relevant but present nonetheless.

[Tanarii]

If you've got an actual honest-to-god mapper you're not just experienced players. You're grognards. :smallamused:

[Blatant Beast]

If you've got an actual honest-to-god mapper you're not just experienced players. You're grognards. :smallamused:

Too true. Even grognards stopped mapping after awhile. At some point, almost inevitably, the mapper would make an error on the map, and then minutes would fly by trying to correct it.

It just became easier to assume the PCs themselves are mapping, and free up the actual players to play.

Though I do think Secret Doors are used less, because players don't map anymore. That is how we found the doors in the "olden days"...we would scour the areas on the map that looked like there could be hidden passages leading off into the undefined areas of the graph paper.

[Theodoxus]

If you've got an actual honest-to-god mapper you're not just experienced players. You're grognards. :smallamused:


Too true. Even grognards stopped mapping after awhile. At some point, almost inevitably, the mapper would make an error on the map, and then minutes would fly by trying to correct it.

It just became easier to assume the PCs themselves are mapping, and free up the actual players to play.

Though I do think Secret Doors are used less, because players don't map anymore. That is how we found the doors in the "olden days"...we would scour the areas on the map that looked like there could be hidden passages leading off into the undefined areas of the graph paper.

/Wave

I used to love mapping while playing the original Bard's Tale on my Commodore 64. It really was the only way to find the null areas that would contain secret spots. That carried through to playing/mapping the old blueprint paper maps in the TSR modules. Sadly, I think it's a lost art. The last game I ran, where I asked the players to map, even counting off squares, they ended up making some kindergarten style map out of my pristine Excel grid... In the end we all realized it was just easier to give them a copy of the map sans notations. Yes, they could quickly see the negative spaces where something probably lived, but at least they weren't trying to dig into the center of the earth or make a CERN style megaloop...

It was also the same game where everyone stated they were tired of dungeons... I was all 'so, what, you want to play Dragons and Dragons?' I think it's going to end up Markets and Modrons...

[Darth Credence]

If you've got an actual honest-to-god mapper you're not just experienced players. You're grognards. :smallamused:

I guess I've just been playing long enough that it was expected. We had graph paper specifically for purposes of mapping, and back in my playing days, every group I was ever part of had people mapping. The first D&D I ever looked at was the basic set, and the first I ever played was AD&D, and as I recall mapping was expected. And yes, a big part of it was to attempt to find secret places. (The particular DM I referred to was one of the last I ever played with, before stopping for a while and coming back with 5e - I have never played 5e, just DMed.)

Even now, my players will make basic maps. Certainly not as detailed as we did in my playing days, but enough that they would catch if the sizes of rooms just changed to fit with the story. I don't give out maps unless someone is proficient with cartography tools, because one of my first players was proficient with cartography tools and that needed some reward, so I figured they could get maps since they had the necessary skills to make an accurate one. Everyone else agreed that was a good idea, and that others could make maps based on their own abilities but would not get them corrected if wrong, so from there we have just kept up the idea of people making their own maps. (I do let them find in-world maps if they do some research, but not all in-world maps are the level of accuracy of the DM maps.)

[Easy e]

Well, that sounds like where the disconnect was.

No on in my group maps. We are lucky if anyone even takes a note!

[KorvinStarmast]

If you've got an actual honest-to-god mapper you're not just experienced players. You're grognards. :smallamused: Yep. Mapping is something I still do. I learned not to trust Roll20 dynamic lighting in our first campaign, which got Korvin killed.

As to taking notes: give how many tools we all have with email, text, discord, etc, I have I have become rather
insisting on my fellow players taking notes. We have frequent cases where one or a few can't make a given session.

[Imbalance]

I've got one player who regularly takes notes, so she also gets to be the official recap narrator in PC diary form, and the other players have to accept everything she says as fact. I'll only insert corrections if there's a major error, or important NPC names. This, to me, seems to add a layer of immersion, as she's decent at scene descriptions, effectively adding to our TotM.

Despite my insistence, nobody at my table ever made more than a cursory effort to make maps. I don't hate it. In the beginning when we were all new I put a lot of effort into secret rooms and hidden features that they never bothered to even search for, then went through a phase where I thought I had to compensate by putting items and information that would have been behind those features into more conspicuous places. I've stopped doing that. It's now pure improvisation that if they search at all, they'll find something. As someone who deals with real world building plans for a living, it's of little consequence to add a secret room or hallway or whatever I need on the fly after only really designing the important areas in a way that "makes sense." I then build miniature set pieces for the areas of likely combat with basic furnishings, and will add fine detail elements only if they take time to look around.

The game I play in, which is a homebrew oldskoole system over VTT, isn't worth mapping. When I first started with this group, we were in person, and I started being the mapper with my second character. It didn't take long to realize that it was a fruitless effort, chalked up to the chaos of the world, but also the GM's disregard for laying out his own scenarios. We were searching for clues in a multi-story haunted mansion where none of the stairs or chimneys aligned and the floors didn't stack. I think it was something like jumping out of a window on the north side of the building and landing outside the main entrance to the east that made me put my grid paper away. Since the plague we've been virtual, and he has downloaded or drawn a number of really great room maps, using TotM in between, but has never kept their orientation to each other straight. The best is when we get separated, play some catch-up, end up one room behind, but somehow travel through a different room than whoever went first; or exit from one door and go three rooms east, but head back through only one of those rooms before emerging on the west side of the first room.

All I have to do is remember that I'm not paying tor these entertainment experiences, that I'm just hanging out with friends, and that nobody involved is a paid developer whose job it is to ensure continuity is error-free, and I have a lot more fun that way.

[Tanarii]

5e doesn't have good exploration game structures or rules to tie into to make mapping worth it. You have to make you own up (or better yet steal them from somewhere) if you want that.

But I'm not personally a fan of Schrödinger's combat space. As a DM I almost always have a map to reference even in TotM, and preferably key environmental notes. And as a player I'd assume the DM has some fixed dimensions and basic notes, accept a reasonable amount of DM Fiat making details up on the spot, and be irritated if I found out he was expecting me to play the world by inventing "narrative" details instead of being focused on playing my character. If that last one was the case, I'd expect it to be called out as an unusual aspect of the campaign in Session 0 ... mainly so I can ask how it's going to work. Because D&D doesn't have any "narrative" rules for players built into it.

But if I was playing PbtA or BitD I'd walk into it expecting that I had every right to particulate in playing the world (and not just my character) to some degree, especially in the places the rules expect that. And for the DM to actively solicit Player feedback on how the world works, per various principles and the like.

[Easy e]

Interesting how different games bring different expectations around game play.

For D&D, my fellow players and DMs seem to expect a grid. Other games, they can flex without it.

[Tanarii]

Absolutely different games set different expectations. But also many (but not all) groups have some number of GMs & players come to the table with prior D&D experience expecting minis/grid of some kind. It's been part of the game for so long now that new players are likely to experience it initially when playing with veteran players. Also in this day and age there are quite a lot of popular D&D streams that set expectations, and some of them have quite advanced terrain and monster models for large set piece battles.

[tsotate]

I find that TotM (especially the squishier, "distance doesn't really exist, and we make it up as we go along" type) really tends to screw over characters who invested in movement speed. When a player chose a race or feat specifically to be able to position their character better, precise positioning matters.

Also, I've been bitter for almost 30 years about my longbow user dying due to somehow being within the radius of a Staff of Power retributive strike in the DM's mental model of the scene, when in mine he was hundreds of feet away.

[Tanarii]

Really? I've found that TotM is pretty much required if you're going to have a battle where speed (a chase) or long range matters. Battle mats are a relatively small area. The fairly standard one is 24x36 squares, or 120ft by 180ft.

Edit: Now if you mean speed matters as in 'positioning matters' and the difference between a 25ft dwarf vs 30 human vs a barbarian/monk makes a difference for getting into position ... yes. I agree that battle mats almost always make that matter more.

[Easy e]

Battle Mats are also a barrier to gaming.

The GM needs to source one before the game, which limits their ability to go "off-the-rails".

Before people jump up and tell me how easy it is now-a-days, it still takes effort and time to gather them.

[Darth Credence]

Battle Mats are also a barrier to gaming.

The GM needs to source one before the game, which limits their ability to go "off-the-rails".

Before people jump up and tell me how easy it is now-a-days, it still takes effort and time to gather them.

Don't need a battle map - you can do it with a table, a tape measure or ruler, and any token one can scrounge up. (You don't even ultimately need a ruler - you can use quarters or something else close to an inch in size to mark out the distance, because it isn't the "inch" that matters, it's consistency. You just need a surface and a bunch of small somethings, which can be coins, pieces of paper, pebbles, minis, cardboard cutouts, whatever.)