Minis and "abstract" (in the sense described above) are not mutually exclusive. In my B/X, WFRP, and TOR games, we use minis and terrain, but that doesn't rule out "I jump on the chandelier!" theatrics and the like.

We tried D&D 3 & 4 for a good while, but the tied-to-the grid system did lead to a focus on the minutia and really long combats.

Quote from: Batman;984336Isn't that what most of the info from the DM is for? Don't people ask the DM questions during combat using Theater of the Mind? I know I sure did. "can I get to my ally without getting smacked by an enemy?" "Can I hit the three orcs in the room with my 10' halberd?" "If I run between past the raging Ogre will he get a swing on me before I can stab him?"

Yes, that is how Theater of the Mind works. My point was that when a grid is added to the mix a cognitive dissonance is created because the visible positions of the figures don't accurately represent the actual positions of characters in combat at any given moment. Particularly with versions of D&D in which the combat rounds are longer and more abstract.

With a grid, the player wouldn't ask -- they would just "magically" move 3 squares to the right because they can already see -- from their aerial perspective -- that it's the right place to be. In Theater of the Mind, they'd have to ask "Can I move so that I can get a shot at the Ogre?" to which the DM would respond "You can't see the Ogre. What do you do?".

Quote from: Baulderstone;984718It does sound a little pretentious. Before I heard that term on the Internet, I just called it "not using miniatures" which isn't really satisfactory either. It is describing what you are not doing rather than what you are doing.

Honestly, before the internet, I don't think I ever used the label Theater of the Mind for my own style. I guess I just would have called it 'roleplaying' or 'roleplaying focused' or just 'talking it out'....unfortunately once I went online I realized there were endless debates about the various meanings of that as well. Not inventing new jargon is probably the wise.

Quote from: Zalman;984960Yes, that is how Theater of the Mind works. My point was that when a grid is added to the mix a cognitive dissonance is created because the visible positions of the figures don't accurately represent the actual positions of characters in combat at any given moment. Particularly with versions of D&D in which the combat rounds are longer and more abstract.

With a grid, the player wouldn't ask -- they would just "magically" move 3 squares to the right because they can already see -- from their aerial perspective -- that it's the right place to be. In Theater of the Mind, they'd have to ask "Can I move so that I can get a shot at the Ogre?" to which the DM would respond "You can't see the Ogre. What do you do?".

Or they approach it from a real life perspective. I have a ranged weapon, I need to move out from behind my party members or whatever else is blocking a clear shot. I try not to make a game that requires a lot of mother-may-I from the players. I don't want them asking "can I", I want them saying "I do...".

Quote from: Baulderstone;984454There is nothing wrong with using army men, I just find that when you use representational minis, not matter how many times you tell your players the army men are really meant to be vampire gnomes, the players will still subconsciously respond to them as army men. I find the completely generic nature of glass beads gets around that.

But I would respond to glass beads like it was a game of Pente or Go. (I'm not really joking.)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;984712I definitely prefer theater of the mind. I kind of wish there was a different term for it, because I think it has connotations in the hobby. But basically that is why I am there to game and miniatures tend to pull me out of it. I like feeling like I am there in the room with the characters. I do think there is a trade off though. You definitely risk having more confusion over tactics and where people are positioned with theater of the mind. If miniatures need to be used, I'd prefer to use them just to see generally where things are rather than handling movement rules and such.

Its funny but I find that often complete TotM totally pulls me out of being in the room with the characters because it quickly becomes apparent to me that the GM, player A, and Player C are all in different rooms, sometimes with different characters.

Quote from: Tod13;984898We played our first couple months straight TOTM. Then we added minis to see what people thought. The main feedback I got from my players was that they liked minis because with 4 PCs, a pet bat, and up to a dozen bad guys in action, minis made it easier to keep track of what was going on.

That's how it works for me too. That said, I find grids and detailed powers that force people 2 hexes or 2 squares too detailed for my taste. For me that does become too boardgamey. While I enjoyed The Fantasy Trip (which uses a hex grid) it always felt too boardgamey to me when compared to using miniatures to show who is next to whom with guesstimated distances.

Depends entirely on the game, for me.

* 3E D&D and derivatives, Hackmaster, modern, tactical, combat-focused GURPS = minis and grid.

* AD&D, Godbound, most other games where I don't feel there is anything to be gained from closely mapping and strictly defining placement = TotM with occasional quick sketches for complex layouts.

* Rolemaster = TotM with regular use of quick whiteboard sketches, being a compromise between the two previous options.

Quote from: Tod13;985003Or they approach it from a real life perspective. I have a ranged weapon, I need to move out from behind my party members or whatever else is blocking a clear shot. I try not to make a game that requires a lot of mother-may-I from the players. I don't want them asking "can I", I want them saying "I do...".

Sure, however you word it the result is the same: if the character cannot see where the enemy is they can't automatically move to a position for firing on it. "I do" can still be answered by "No you cannot". If they have miniatures in front of them, the player may think their character can see the enemy simply because the player can, which is where a conflict can arise.

Clash, are you at all inspired by Up Front? (Also see: Attack Sub, Frontline: D-Day, Down in Flames.)

When I think way, way bitd, around when I was using Greyhawk and Judge's Guild's Dungeon
Tac Cards, we basically just thought in terms of who was in the front line, who in the second line, etc. Not much other concern for positioning in terms of flanking or who could be targeted. In theory, this was less vivid and offered fewer options, but we still had a lot of fun. Taking something like that and adding some kind of card draw/play to represent terrain effects and obtaining positional advantages could be an interesting avenue for design.

I'm finding this thread fascinating. I don't like the grid either; I've seen too many games where the player moves like a chess piece. I do use minis, as well as all sorts of props and stuff, but there's a whole lot of 'Theater of the Mind' at work as well in my games. I've found that with the people I've gamed with over the years. what I put on the table seems to stimulate their imaginations. So, I dunno; maybe I'm the 'middle ground'.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;985292I'm finding this thread fascinating. I don't like the grid either; I've seen too many games where the player moves like a chess piece. I do use minis, as well as all sorts of props and stuff, but there's a whole lot of 'Theater of the Mind' at work as well in my games. I've found that with the people I've gamed with over the years. what I put on the table seems to stimulate their imaginations. So, I dunno; maybe I'm the 'middle ground'.

I do two things when I use miniatures, first the players doesn't have all the time in the world at some points (about a minute or so) I will start counting five... four.... three.. or they lose their turn as their character is being indecisive. Second I always been a referee who does describe first, then worry about the mechanic section. I reinforce this with describing the situation as naturally as possible. The grid is used in my campaigns but as a quick measurement tool. I have some setups that don't have grids in which case I use a measuring tape that sits in my dice tray. It also helps I did a lot of reenactments and Live action roleplaying which gave me a lot to use to describe things in tabletop.

I  strive to learn to use miniatures well because I am 50% deaf which makes refereeing a bit of adventure at time as I struggle to hear people across the din of the table. With miniatures it helped a lot with me understanding what the players wanted to do that turn.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;985292I'm finding this thread fascinating. I don't like the grid either; I've seen too many games where the player moves like a chess piece. I do use minis, as well as all sorts of props and stuff, but there's a whole lot of 'Theater of the Mind' at work as well in my games. I've found that with the people I've gamed with over the years. what I put on the table seems to stimulate their imaginations. So, I dunno; maybe I'm the 'middle ground'.

I agree with this. I never use a graph but do use minis. I think minis can be great jumping of point for the theater of the mind.

Quote from: Big Andy;985664I agree with this. I never use a graph but do use minis. I think minis can be great jumping of point for the theater of the mind.

I'm sure they could, but for most people they seem to have the opposite effect?

Quote from: AsenRG;985711I'm sure they could, but for most people they seem to have the opposite effect?

You don't have (nor does anyone else have) anywhere near enough data to draw that conclusion.

Generally I prefer theater of the mind, combined with some relatively abstract 'tracking and positioning' tools like range bands and general "points of interest". I also tend to 'drop in' and 'drop out' of combat as organically as possible; even during stretches of what could technically be considered "in combat".

As an example, if two swordsmen are dueling but pause to talk crap and circle each other trying to psych the other out, I drop out and 'go narrative', letting players describe what they're doing and where they're moving, what they're saying, how they're trying to position, etc. until one closes to make a swing or something else that causes "turns" to kick in again. It makes combat feel more real, particularly during lulls in gun battles where contested positioning, flanks, etc. becomes rather more important than the second-by-second detail of what exactly an individual is doing (which would otherwise just be lots of boring turns watching people fruitlessly move tokens around on a map, which also doesn't feel 'genuine' because the Character won't necessarily have the tactical expertise of the Player [or the benefit of a bird's-eye view of the "battle board"] and vice-versa, which makes dropping out and going "narrative" with some contested positioning and Tactics rolls, descriptive play, etc. feels more faithful to the game world and the reality of the characters).

If positioning and facing becomes extremely important like a fight with multiple combatants on either side in a very tight space with important objects and obstacles, I do occasionally break out a small hex set and hastily draw out the area, objects of importance, and use tokens or draw arrows for player positioning/facing. This would be for very specific and generally short-lived situations, though, where every detail matters. Context is everything.

Theater of the Mind.

I've reached the point that when the referee gets out the map/grid and figures/counter, I groan.  TFT is okay with one or two PCs but with a large group,  you're done for the night once that damned grid comes out.

I like combat to be PART of the experience, not a totally separate event.