5th edition doesn’t seem to assume that you are using a grid for encounters. While the rules certainly allow for it, I think it is basic enough tactically to go without one.
That’s the way we used to play in my pre-3rd edition games, and there are certain advantages to playing without the grid.
The biggest advantage to playing without the grid, in my opinion, is that it encourages descriptions from players and DMs to be from the point of view of the characters. Explanations of what the character’s sense, and what actions they are taking are in line with visualizing the scene from the character’s perspective.
When the scene isn’t clear to a player, it is readily apparent and they are prompted to ask questions about the details they are lacking in order be able to interface with the scene. This seems to encourage a more immersive and more enjoyable experience for everyone.
That is not to say that the grid isn’t a useful tool and it should not be used.
Since 3rd edition, there have been few games that I have not played with a grid. The grid makes for a much more tactical experience. It encourages the players to make the most of terrain, and more accurately tracks spatial details for the crunchier aspects of the game.
If not used correctly though, the grid can discourage character perspective and encourage a third person player perspective which reduces immersion.
By this point, you may be asking yourself. “What is the big deal about immersion anyway?”
A player who is immersed in the scene engages completely different parts of the brain than a player who is making decisions for a miniature on a two dimensional grid. The experience is not only more memorable, but it is also more realistic and invokes a greater emotional response. The comparison can be likened to the difference in reading a cherished book and then seeing it retold as a movie. Even if all the details are accurate, it puts the experience “out there” and isn’t as enjoyable.
I think that there is a compromise that can be reached to gain the benefits of the use of a grid and still not damage immersion. It involves a few extra steps and a little more table time, but it may be worth the effort.
The following guidelines are from the perspective of the DM, but the players have their part to play as well.
· Gauge if the grid is needed at all.
RP or simple combat encounters should not be drawn on a grid. If the encounter escalates and flows into something more dynamic, then present only the details that are needed on the grid.
· Describe the scene from the character perspective before showing it on a grid.
Engage as many of the five senses as you can. Use your facial expressions as a visual cue as to what it should be making the character’s feel. When they return the look, you know that they are feeling it. Don’t get too bogged down in exact measurements. Provide only enough measurements as the scene requires. The measurements are better explained on the grid. You can even include details by note for those characters who can perceive with more than just the five senses. This will encourage them to share what they are learning with the others and highlights that character’s gifts.
· Allow the characters to interact with the scene and RP before showing it on the grid.
This will encourage more dramatic play and not encourage the players to simply jump into a conflict.
· Draw a simple map while initiative is being rolled and order is being established.
If you know the encounter is going to be difficult to visualize or you want to insert a good heavy tactical encounter into the game, then sketch it out quick and dirty. Take a minute to point out how the details you have already painted in their minds correlate with what is being seen on the grid.
· Encourage everyone to look up from the grid and at the other players when declaring actions.
When describing their actions, it should be from the perspective of the character. The DM can set the precedent for this when describing the actions of the bad guys. Give details of how the action is being performed. Depict the emotional state of the opponent with facial expressions. Describe locations of movement without pointing it out on the grid if at all possible. Do not move the minis to reflect the new positions on the grid until this is done.
· Clear the table of minis as soon as combat is over or if you stop tracking rounds.
It is easy for most players to keep moving around minis even after combat is over. Return to a character perspective description of events that occur after combat.
I have to be honest and admit that my current weekly game has been lacking in immersion. A weight that I, as the DM, must shoulder and correct. I sat back and detailed out the list above in my attempts to encourage the type of game that I like to play.
I hope that this list of guidelines will help those of you out there who want to attempt to get more from their game than a series of tactical encounters. D&D can be so much more than that.
Please respond and share ideas you may have to encourage a more immersive game. I know that there are many gamers out there that have never had this type of gaming experience and I for one would like to see more of it.
leo9sign wrote:
Neither break my immersion if done properly, but the birds-eye-view deal can get annoying; sometimes it's nice for the player to picture what their character is seeing in a normal ground-based-point-of-view.
Both can be done, I am now at a point where I like to mix up between using measurements (from grids to cloth-measure tapes, those are really fun) and minis/tokens and TotM.
An epic battle against a serious solo-type can be better TotM, IMO.
I personally don't see how the grid loses any 'immersion.' And 'metagaming; is an integral part of any gaming. Well, if there are rules. If there are no rules; then there is no metagaming or gaming. Then just sit around and tell stories. You don't need a game with rules then.
If people cannot discribe and enjoy their experience, that's on them...Not the game. Besides; you don't say "I hack off that guys head!" The DM decides when an enemy dies. Dice rolls decide when an enemy dies. AS a PC you say: " I try to hack off that guy's head".
Being immersed in the game has never, to me, had anything to do with combat being run on a grid or TotM. If anything, Theatre of the Mind has broken my intrest and immersion because of the fact that there are no rules; it's all up to what the DM says (ultimately), or all just a pile of PC heresay and conjecture.
Combat rules work better on a grid. Not only do I prefer grid-based combat, but grid-based combat actually makes more sense...I mean, at least with minis/tokens/whatever and a grid you know where everything and everyone is. There's no question about that. It also allows for more combat options. And, (again, IMO) more options are good.
But that is just combat.
Things like role-playing and feeling into the game have little to do with just combat, IMO. Feeling into the game; ie: 'immersion' is not a factor or result of rulesets. It's all about you and your play group.
I appreciate your analesis, but I don't see 'immersion' as a science. I see it as an 'art'.
In my game, I like hard rules for combat, but I prefer soft rules( or no rules) for everything else.
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
Rules cannot be monitored or inforced in TotM combat play. It's all up to DM adjucation and/or player anger....But, hey. That's just my experience and opinion. If it works for you, do it.
I have never found focusing on numbers to be a problem with being into the game, or an role play-oriented fun experience. Again, it's a game. If rules, grids, and numbers ruin your immersion; then why don't you just tell stories around a table? Who needs dice, rules, books, or anything?
We don't agree, apparently. No problems, fellow D&D fan.
I bet there are other things we might agree on.
It's been my experience with theater of the mind that there is often repeated questions about who is located where, what direction are they facing, where the objects in the room are, and so on. I frequently have to draw the room on a piece of scrap paper so the players can remember where everything is and, in cases of irregularly shaped rooms, what the room's area is like. Additionally, my players have usually tended to draw little dot-like circles where they are and where I described the monsters as being.
Since theater of the mind always turns into a pseudo-tableau vivant, I find it easier to just use tableu vivant to begin with. Furthermore, since the tableau vivant eliminates questions about where am I, where is so-and-so, what direction is he facing, can I reach so-and-so from here, who will fall in the AoE if I use X spell, and so on, it actually plays quicker for me than theater of the mind does.
leo9sign wrote:
My favorite way to play with minis is with out the grid at all. Instead make a peice of yarn about 7-8 inches and mark out each inch with a black marker. This allows for more fluid and natural movement. Imagine wanting to move straight for a bit but curve around some rocks. The yarn is flexible enough to allow for a realistic path that some one would actually walk. It also avoids some of the weird stuff that comes with the grid system. Give about a 1/4 inch grace zone and call it a day. However having standardized bases becomes more important.
People should try that IMHO.
In my experience as both player and DM, and I get the feeling my group agrees, using the grid does inhibit first-person visualization of the scene. Maybe it doesn't work that way for everyone. But it does for me. Since I like first-person visualization, I'm careful about my usage of the grid. If I can get by just as well without it, I do. If I feel like the grid will actually speed up or add to the experience, I use it.
leo9sign wrote:
I completely understand that the game can involve creative expression in many forms, and as with any other creative expression, it can be highly personalized to everyone involved. With so many variables between how the rules are employed and how the game is presented, received, and then returned, it is pointless to attempt to try and defend the methods that work for me.
I am not so pretentious to think that my methods will work for everyone. All I can do is attempt to share what I have learned, the things I am trying out, and how others might incorporate elements that they may have not yet attempted in their own games.
Those are type of posts that I enjoy reading, the ones that give me a new perspective or inspire me to incorporate new elements into my own game. So those are the type of posts that I am choosing to make. Make my contribution to the communal brain of D&D.
SOOO..
To encourage discussion, questions and clarification of points, I will attempt to address direct questions and provide added details where I think points may be misunderstood. I am not at all interested in getting into lengthy debates over small variations of style that may be just a result of personal choice.
I am not a seasoned poster and not sure if I can use the forum tools efficiently, but I will do my best.
iserith wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Comparing editions/games is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Can someone direct me to instruction on using the forum tools? I think the most efficient way to respond to individual points is to quote just that point and include its poster instead of ending up with the entire post. I also see that you can include multiple quotes from different posts. I am having trouble pulling this off.
leo9sign wrote:
leo9sign wrote:
DM_HEEGZ wrote:
Not assuming the use of a grid is the one thing that made me deicde I was not taking part in 5E, in my eyes (my eyes only mind you) without a grid, it stops being a role playing game and is just roleplaying. Both parts are equally important to me.
It wasen't untill I read the basic PDF that I changed my mind and fell for 5e.
I will still use a grid for bigger fights, or maybe ill use the tape measue thing suggested here. That is really intrigging actually. I feel like I would want a hexgonal grid instead of a square one this time around anyway So maybe still play combat on a gameboard, just no grid.
Personally, I find the grid to be immersion breaking to the point of being a "deal breaker." During my tenure with 4e, I found that counting squares on the grid, figuring out cover on the basis of grid positioning and geometry, and the like would pull the table I was playing with out of the process of "narrating" our actions into into the process of "gaming mechanics." I like it when the mechanics are simple enough and quick enough to adjudicate that the process of adjudicating them doesn't end up taking more time than the process of narrating the event which is occurring. If the method of adjudicating the rules structurally produces narrative language (so that the adjudicatory process seamlessly folds into the process of narrating the event), so much the better! What is more, I like the rules to reward the process of thinking narratively as opposed to mechanically. For example, I want to reward players not for finding the right square to stand in, but for saying "I run up to the wall and duck behind it."
As a result of the way 4e used the grid, it didn't feel like an RPG to me. I felt like I was playing a board-game akin to Descent. I had to role-play despite the system. The system did not foster role-playing as a result of its structure. I know that such game-play doesn't bother many players, nor does it negatively affect their immersion. It did, however, really bother me. The person who was DMing the table I was playing 4e at has said to me that it really bothered him as well. I have had players at a 4e game I was DMing make similar comments. That being said, it wasn't the presence of miniatures that bothered us. In fact, the DM who ran that 4e game has a huge miniatures collection. I think he really likes using them. When I ran WFRPG 3e for them, I used maps and miniatures without a grid and without square counting. The map and miniatures served as nothing more than a visual aid. I found that use of miniatures effective without negatively influencing my immersion. The person who DMed the aforementioned 4e game I played at also DMs some Shadowrun. At those Shadowrun games, we use no miniatures. The DM does, however, use some "visual aids" in the form of floor schematics for key locations. I find that very effective as well. The actual grid, however, had an atrocious effect on my sense of enjoyment. I don't think I will ever play another RPG with a grid again. Abstract zones? Sure. A grid? No thanks. Miniatures? I am happy to use them as a visual aid. Those are my 2 cents.
I completely agree with Cdave above
Don't forget that grid play leads people into believing those perfectly square dungeon-tile dungeons are not only acceptable but preferred. 
Wuzzard wrote:
This thread should go well. . .
There are "Role Playing gamers", "role playing Gamers" and role playing gamers. It's all good folks.
Disclaimer: In no way am I suggesting these three archetypes sit down to play D&D at the same table. . .Just sayin'
Forgive me if someone has said this already but there is a growing community of people who used gridless tiles and teach how they are made on YT. DMScotty being the one that springs to mind. As 5' in game is 1" scale it is very easy to use a ruler to determine movement and ranges. I tried it in my game and it works great but YMMV. Unlike DNScotty I prefer foamcore to card board.
I still just use good ol' graph paper and circles with character and monster intials. I tell myself it's because that leaves more to the players imagination, but deep down I know it's because I'm a cheapskate. :p
5e isn't any easier to use without a grid than 3e or 4e. It is much harder to use without a grid than 13th Age. There are simply too many elements in 5e which require detailed locational knowledge.
Arguments about burning hands, sleep, opportunity attacks, protection fighting style, ranged attacks, light, cover, hiding, etc all have come up in our 5e games played without a grid. With different DMs too, so not just in isolated situations.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
leo9sign wrote:
seti wrote:
I actualy noticed that in a way we enjoyed less detailed/accurate maps and minatures
So it remains clear the batlemat is just a tool for determing relative posisioning, and not this is what it exactly look like.
So each player can maintain the image in their mind.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Out group has played many encounters in 4e without using house rules and without using the grid. You simply think of squares as a unit of measurement equalling 5 ft. The san rest a yard is a unit of measurement equalling 3 ft. Sure you have to hand wave some things, but 4e without a grid works out just as well as it did in 2e - 3.5e for us (and now 5e). Of course, they all suck compared to 13th Age gridless.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I never used squares as a unit of measurement when I ran 4e I always converted to feet in my head and in my narration. That said 4e was the most difficult version of D&D to uncouple from a grid and miniatures wargame type of play. I am not saying it could not be done.
When I ran Becmi and AD&D1 and 2 I generally would just draw a rough map on a sheet of paper and mark player and monster locations with initials such that orc1 become o1 and Tem the monk was marked as T. This was not always perfect but it worked.
MechaPilot wrote:
iserith wrote:
leo9sign wrote:
D&D has always used miniatures, and was always optional. "Marching Order" was always used to tell the DM whom he can sneak up from behind. 
For me where the grid fails is movement. The interaction with movement and a turn based game becomes too apparent with a grid. Without a grid you might say something like the guard blocks your path so you can't reach the king and people understand they will need to pull a trick or use multiple people to get past the guard without engaging him. Once its on a gird people count 7 squares or whatever as they maneuver past static obstacles that really shouldn't be stationary. You then have to design encounters to avoid this with either tons of choke points or ridiculous distances so people just don't run around the guard and kill the boss. The map stops being what you envisioned but instead some bizarre construction to avoid turn based move cheese.
I play 4e without a grid just about every week. While we do play with a lot of house rules. The grid isn't really an issue. I really don't see how its much different to go from squares to feet. Some people already have to go from meters to feet, so I fail to see the issue.
You don't really have to make house rules, you do have to change the style of play. It doesn't matter if cover is based on the grid because when you play ToTM you ask the DM who is your eyes and ears into the world where you can go for cover or how many rounds it would take to get somewhere. I don't really consider that a house rule, but I guess it depends on how much you trust the DM is being honest about the rules when they make the call.
Cennedi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
sleypy wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
MechaPilot wrote: