Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 NamelessHero Feb 19, 2015 19:24:16	Hello all,  Recently in an interview about changes from the previous edition to the 5e, Mike Mearls and friends commented that they no longer use minis and thus prefer the theater of the mind layout style. Their rational was that it spead up the game and made it flow better. I could not disagree more. I feel as though theater of the mind is awful and needs to be done away with. IMHO it slows down the game by having to CONSTANTLY clarify board states.    I was curoius as to how community feels about this? Do you guys still use minis and grids, or does your play group prefer theater of the mind? If so, why?
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Feb 19, 2015 19:31:44	I use both. Some encounters are straightforward enough that the time spent clarifying positioning details is less time than arranging minis and tiles/battlemap would take, so those are theatre of the mind. Other encounters are more complex and rely on more precise positioning, so those get minis and tiles/battlemap.
#3 Rhenny Feb 19, 2015 20:07:54	I also use both.     Theater of The Mind works best for groups that focus more on story and groups that trust the DM explicitly.  It is great for smaller combats or quick ambushes/skirmishes and it works especially well by keeping the story fluid when combats are quick.    Longer, more complex encounters are easier for me to run with a grid, but I could see working out short cuts and using scratch paper (like I did in the old days) to keep track of positioning and action.   Some times, even the big set piece can work in theater of the mind especially if the foes have other objectives rather than fight to the death. For example, if half of the foes fight and the other half tries to run or moves to another position to build something, destroy something, or do something else as a group, it is easy to describe the actions and keep theater of the mind vivid.
#4 Tony_Vargas Feb 19, 2015 20:31:04	NamelessHero wrote:
#5 Kalani Feb 19, 2015 20:42:35	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#6 CCS Feb 20, 2015 0:08:11	I'll use both. Whatever best fits the needs of the moment. Always have, lays will
#7 Psikerlord Feb 20, 2015 0:53:47	NamelessHero wrote:
#8 NamelessHero Feb 20, 2015 6:49:51	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#9 iserith Feb 20, 2015 8:00:07	NamelessHero wrote:
#10 BoldItalic Feb 20, 2015 9:00:47	One argument is that, as soon as you place minis on a battlemat, the players will assume that this is supposed to be a combat enounter and act accordingly. It effectively discounts the possibility that the encounter might be resolved any other way. If you play D&D as a wargame, then that's fine. But it's only one of the three pillars of the game.
#11 Cyber-Dave Feb 20, 2015 9:01:58	I am a HUGE fan of theater of the mind mixed with cognitive artifacts. Namely, I use a board/miniatures, but that board has no gird. I find it is square counting that REALLY slows down the D&D game. As a result, everything at tables I run is adjudicated using theater of the mind mechanics, but the placement of creatures in a visual space helps people figure out what is going on.
(Reply to #8) CCS	NamelessHero wrote:
#13 Devils-Advocate Feb 20, 2015 11:07:48	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#14 OoftaMeg Feb 20, 2015 11:29:14	I almost never use TOTM.  I usually have 6 players and as many as a dozen or more enemy combatants.  I just find it too hard to keep track of everything unless every fight is just a big skirmish.  I'd be curious to watch some of the TOTM that the WOTC guys run to see how they do it, because the ones I saw used a whiteboard pretty extensively.   But I've been using some variation of tokens/minis since D&D first came out so I may be an outlier.   I just find that I enjoy complex scenarios.  One thing I do try to encourage (and something I do with my monsters) is interacting creatively with the environment.  Kicking over table so provide cover, swinging from chandeliers, etc.  I also do a lot of descriptive things that bring the environment to life, I just find it easier for "who's where" to use a map.
(Reply to #11) Rhenny	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#16 Archon007 Feb 20, 2015 12:39:15	iserith wrote:
#17 Illithidbix Feb 20, 2015 12:50:32	I mostly use Theater of the Mind.   But some fights do benefit from a rough map. Whiteboards being super useful for this.   I have considered using 13th Age style "nearby", "behind", "far away" and "engaged/disengaged" system. Perhaps making "nearby" = 30 yard.
#18 abs1nth Feb 20, 2015 13:25:38	iserith wrote:
#19 strider13x Feb 20, 2015 13:55:53	If the situation is framed by the DM then TotM is cool. As a TotM DM I tend to be forgiving to the players when in doubt about positioning. I also consistently reframe the engaged combatants each turn so there is little question about who is on whom.   I do use maps more for dungeon crawls but most of my experienced players prefer TotM when for that. I find it hard when the room has 4 exits, 2 on wall A, 1 on wall B, etc... That's when a map works for me as DM.
#20 Barky Feb 20, 2015 16:07:38	Most of my players love minis and combat and tactics and positiong and all the other wargaming stuff. They would hate me if I went pure TotM.   However, I have used it here and there, and I don't see it slows things up too much.    One thing I do cut back on is using maps for everything. Unless the dungeon itself is a problem to be solved, there's nothing wrong with using all descriptions instead of drawing out the grid as they travel. The early Gygaxian modules had some awesome maps, but did mapping everything out as the players really add much to the fun? Not really (IMHO).
#21 alienux Feb 20, 2015 19:40:56	I use both, but lately have been doing strictly TotM. I find it to be much faster due to less setup time and less time digging minis out when they're needed.   I guess I go through phases, but sometimes when I use minis and a grid, it feels a little too board-gamey. I've gone back mostly to what we did when I first started playing in the 80s and just drawing maps on paper as we go. I mark positions on the map in pencil when combat begins so it's easy to keep track of where everyone is.
#22 Onelostroad Feb 20, 2015 22:00:48	For me, it's Theater of the Mind for sure. I'm not knocking those that prefer a map. I think it's a preference but I see quite a few advantages to TotM. Mind you, this assumes good players and a good DM. Without that, it really doesn't matter what you do - you're going to have problems.   1) It's faster. Setup alone for a combat takes way less time, let alone moving a dozen enemies around the board and watching players try to move in a bizarre pattern across the board to avoid opportunity attacks and gain cover at the end of the move. My players just ask, "Can I..." and the answer is either, "Yes," "No," "Yes, but...," "Yes, if you..." or "No, but..." Pretty simple and quick.   2) Keeping off the grid allows more DM perogative. The board is absolute while the DM can fudge things more freely in TotM.      3) Whatever the players imagine is better than a map. In the TotM, it causes all involved to visualize the action in their mind, creating greater player engagement.   4) It requires the players to be attentive to all of the action - even when it's not their turn. Texting until it's your turn and then looking at the map to try to figure out your move doesn't work with TotM.    5) TotM allows more complex encounters to take place. It's freeing to the players - they don't feel bound by the borders of a drawn map. I've had several encounters that would have been a nightmare to map... combats moving through multiple rooms in dungeon, combats that get spread out across a gigantic space, the party being driven apart into two separate areas during a combat, three dimensional combats in water or in air, etc. In TotM, it's no problem. On a map, it's - "Wait, let me redraw that... ugh! You're going back and forth AGAIN!"   6) It just feels more "organic" and real than a 5' grid map. On a map, the characters tend to move to maximize strategic value which ends up feeling mechanical.   I don't think anyone's going to convince anyone else in this thread and that's not my intent.   I think a player's preferred game style is based on your spatial-relational ability. Some people are more concrete-operational and need the visual of a figure on the table in an exact location. That's okay for those players but I think a map is transformative to the nature and feel of the game and my person feeling is that the game is at its best when you play the movie in your mind.
#23 MechaPilot Feb 20, 2015 22:52:54	I also use both.   Usually, I will save the board and minis for the larger battles.  However, a board is sometimes really beneficial if you have a tight space (particularly in 3e and 4e where AoOs were more likely than in 5e), or if you have a particularly complicated piece of terrain (like my homebrewed necrofungus).
#24 ivstin Feb 20, 2015 23:07:35	Both.   I have two simple guidelines for my combats before I make a decision: 1. Are the classes involved the sort of classes that are likely to need exact positioning for any benefits (rogues, monks, someone with reach weapons)? 2. Are there multiple monsters that are going to last more than "1 hit"?   If the answer to either of these is yes, I use a grid. There are exceptions to this rule, such as when I run a chase or certain environmental features are intended to cause problems, but it works pretty well.   One of the greatest moments in my D&D combat career whas in a ToTM session when a player said "I want to move so that I am between the two Kobolds, so I can draw their attacks. I know they prefer to swarm on people; so I want to be by both of them, and then I want to duck and weave using my shield to dodge."   Their words told me where to put them, and everyone on the map knew "Torrin is by two kobolds of the six." It was pretty exciting.   My personal favorite for myself was "How far is the ledge from the bad guy's heels? 10 ft.? Mk. I rush forward and use the Shove in place of my first attack. ... *rolls* ... Ok for my second one, I'm going to "interact" and put my sword away; then I'm going to grapple him. *roll* Now I'm going to use my bonus action from Shield Master to shove him over the edge, but keep him grappled. "Hey buddy; you should surrender."   Didn't need a grid, and I won the day. Also makes acrobatic attacks way cooler... unless you like flipping minis across the room. That's just golden.
#25 DM_HEEGZ Feb 21, 2015 20:45:55	I use both. Sometimes we really need to break out the minis and have a nice combat session. My players prefer this for drawn out combats.    A couple of guards or a quick encounter? We do it theater of mind just to speed things along.
#26 Archon007 Feb 22, 2015 0:07:51	Onelostroad wrote:
#27 Crimson_red Feb 22, 2015 9:56:29	I run both styles as well, TotME for simple scenarios and grid for the more complicated. Admittedly, I'm comfortable running entirely in TotME, but most of my players I had introduced to D&D through 4th and with the elaborate use of minis, markers, and map, making the transition to TotME more challenging. I do enjoy the greater speed and freedom even still, and I can fit close to double the number of combat scenarios in a session too.
#28 sirkaikillah11 Feb 22, 2015 12:27:03	I am in the camp of using both theatre of the mind and minis. Our group likes minis and playing with them. But sometimes its just not worth the set up time to play out an encounter. If it's a large complex battle enocunter I'll use minis and a battle mat.  A recent enoucnter with stirges in a swarm of bats, I used theatre of mind and did away with initiative.   I've also done large social encounters with minis as well. I didn't use them for a grid combat but to let everyone have an idea of who was where in a manor during a party.   Personally there are lots of times where our precious minis would just slow down the action so we do away with them. But we also like to play with our toys so mini and battlemats get used.
#29 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 17:08:13	Archon007 wrote:
#30 Tony_Vargas Feb 25, 2015 12:30:47	Kalani wrote: