TheRPGSite

Title says it all. What's your preference? Got a main reason or is just what you prefer?

Both, preferably in a system where the group is comfortable switching back and forth as needed, occasionally even mid-combat.  Some fights work better on a grid, and some do not.  That is, the grid is sometimes a very useful tool, but I don't want to be tied to it.

I enjoyed the grid (with tokens because they were cheaper) when I played Fourth Edition D&D from 2008 to 2012.  With 13th Age I just use dice and/or tokens to represent range bands. Other than that, though, I opt for theatre of the mind.

I been using  props, grids, dry erase board, and minis since 1980 when I obtained my first Grenadier boxed set miniatures regardless of the system I am using. However there are numerous times when I go theater of the mind  as well. It not a binary choice.

Generally theater of the mind; but if pressed I'll do minis with free movement. Break out the tape measures and Warhammer Whippy Sticks! I despise grid movement.

I prefer miniatures but I don't always use them.

For D&D (and similar), I go all-out with scratch-built terrain, Dwarven Forge, the works.

For Cthulhu, I opted for "amorphous monster is scarier in your mind than a 2" mini on the tabletop". (But I use lots of props - documents, vials, artifacts, etc - in that campaign.)

As much as I love miniatures and wargames there's no way stuff on the table is going to come close to what I can imagine.
I've played in groups that had big collections of Dwarven Forge scenics and they were, IMO, limiting on the game. Fun for a skirmish wargame, but too constricting for what I want in an RPG.
Same thing for virtual tabletops with all the bells and whistles turned on... felt like a boardgame and slowed things down.
At most, what I favor, if some visual aide is necessary, is a quick sketch on a whiteboard with some abstact tokens.
I don't really want all the props and handouts in a CoC game, but I'll do it because people expect it.

I played in a few D&D5 games recently that didn't use miniatures of any kind, after almost two decades of Post-3e grid-and-minis/tokens/counters play. I may lose some old-school cred for saying this, but it was sorta frustrating. Lots of confusion as to where characters were, how many enemies were involved, etc.

Both, switching back and forth as required.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;984245I may lose some old-school cred for saying this, but it was sorta frustrating. Lots of confusion as to where characters were, how many enemies were involved, etc.

Is it inherently old school to go withought minis? My first few groups all used them, though generally unpainted and minus fancy terrain. Sometimes we'd melt them over a candle when a character died.

I prefer not to use minis. Part of it is practical--the cost and trouble of acquiring, prepping, and storing the stuff.

Part is esthetic--I feel the game's more vivid and more "first person" when visualized than when hovering over a bunch of figures and moving them around. As GM, I'd rather track things on my own sheet and describe events from the POV of each character. But as a player, I've seen this be more confusing than could be justified by "heat of battle". So I don't know if some GMs are better at description of spatial relationships, or if some players are worse at visualizing them, but I'd rather meet people where they feel comfortable.

The Fantasy Trip is a game that I like which works very well with a hex map and figures (which can be paper minis or counters). There are some details of positioning that would be hard to adjudicate without those elements, and I like the game so I'd be inclined to use them to that. Maybe I could do the map stuff behind a screen and interpret the player's plans, if I really wanted to.

D&D3e/4e don't hold much attraction for me so the maps there are a negative.

I have the good fortune of being the least talented painter of miniatures in a wargame and roleplaying club which has members (plural) that can do this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UWy_4PRn824/R_Aw0wZXstI/AAAAAAAAAhg/SbA4Yoj6iLg/s1600-h/IMG_1587.JPG) routinely.  (Those aren't mine--they come from the most talented member of the club.)

So lots of miniatures of all sorts available and I try to find lots of excuses to use them.  I will do theater of the mind if I find something unexpected breaking out, or if I don't want to spend a lot of time on a particular combat.

Oh, yeah, I actually think enjoyed using minis quite a bit for a game of Mythic, which isn't the sort of game you'd normally expect to need them. On that occasion, the visual element and the constraints of having to play with the particular toys at hand were a creative stimulus that worked well with the rules and our imaginations.

As far as I can tell all of these are usually necessary for a well-rounded RPG experience. Some systems lend themselves more to one than the other. Some systems might exclude one or the other. I have a personal preference for theatre of the mind. But - you do whatever best serves the system to create the best results for players.

//Panjumanju

I lean more towards theater of the mind, but I do both. I prefer theater of the mind in general because it allows for more flexibility in the direction the game goes. There are fights where having minis on the table can really add to the experience though.

When I do use minis, I prefer the rules for them to be as simple as possible. When a game layers on complex positioning rule involving minis, like in D&D 3E/Pathfinder and 4E, I find it wrecks the pacing of the game. Individual combats take up too much of the session. Players can also obsess too much over moving their "piece" around the board. When each player is spending their turn carefully counting squares on the grid for optimal positioning, the roleplaying is dead. Players only think of performing actions that are within the structure of the mini game they are playing, and their character is that piece on the table, not them.

If I use minis, I want them to be there to give a sense of where everything is. That is all. I'll generally reserve them for when there is a larger battle. That way the "wargamey" feel of using them becomes an asset.

I'm not a fan of using virtual mini setups in online play. When I am at a tabletop, I can use mat with dry erase pens and quickly scribble down a location. In a pinch, I can use gaming beads as minis. With virtual tabletops, it is a lot harder to just scribble a place down. They are meant to use prepared maps and having stats entered into the system.

When I run a game online in video chat, I stick entirely to theater of the mind, and I don't even use dice rollers. Everyone rolls their dice and calls out the numbers. Just like at the table.

Quote from: Simlasa;984252Is it inherently old school to go withought minis? My first few groups all used them, though generally unpainted and minus fancy terrain. Sometimes we'd melt them over a candle when a character died.

From what I understand, Arneson used big elaborate mini setups, and Gygax hid behind a file cabinet and did theater of the mind. Whatever side you pick, you get old school cred.

Quote from: wombat1;984256I have the good fortune of being the least talented painter of miniatures in a wargame and roleplaying club which has members (plural) that can do this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UWy_4PRn824/R_Aw0wZXstI/AAAAAAAAAhg/SbA4Yoj6iLg/s1600-h/IMG_1587.JPG) routinely.  (Those aren't mine--they come from the most talented member of the club.)

So lots of miniatures of all sorts available and I try to find lots of excuses to use them.  I will do theater of the mind if I find something unexpected breaking out, or if I don't want to spend a lot of time on a particular combat.

We used to play WFB and 40K in high school, and I had a neighbor who was fantastic at painting minis and making terrain, and he loved doing it. Any time I bought new minis, I could drop them off at his place and wait a week for them to come back looking perfect.

Quote from: Panjumanju;984258As far as I can tell all of these are usually necessary for a well-rounded RPG experience. Some systems lend themselves more to one than the other. Some systems might exclude one or the other. I have a personal preference for theatre of the mind. But - you do whatever best serves the system to create the best results for players.

Very true. While I am generally theater of the mind, I love playing with minis when Savage Worlds is used, and I can't imagine ever using minis with Call of Cthulhu.

Personally I find anything other than theatre of the mind terribly destructive to immersion. As minis and terrain I'm a miniatures wargamer and can craft terrain and paint as well as the next guy but there is NEVER enough to provide for an RPG. Tried it once 30 or so years ago but never again.

I've been using Miniatures for combat since pretty much 3rd Edition. Had a few in AD&D 2e but I didn't play that much to really get into it. I like the visual representation and like to see where everyone is when I make decisions on who to attack or where to cast spells.

Theater of the mind I guess. I don't use minis, and I don't use graph paper. But then again, I don't run D&D, so no big whup.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984218Title says it all. What's your preference? Got a main reason or is just what you prefer?

I prefer pitting real players with real weapons against real monsters in a Thunderdome type of arrangement.

Why? BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!

Even when I use a grid, I don't use painted miniatures.  Sometimes, I'll use Lego figures with appropriate weapons in hand.  That's as close as I'll get to an accurate portrayal of the characters, as it leaves room for imagination.  

Well, that and because I'm so bad with glue and paint that if anyone knew, I'd be banned from painting miniatures in 22 states.

Come on, Clash. Why does it matter whether you're running D&D or not? You've got games with squad-level combat, no? So how do you handle--and communicate--positioning? Traveller/Snapshot used maps and counters--it's not unique to D&D.

I love the minute strategizing that comes from playing on a grid with very specific rules for doing so, when I'm playing a board game. To that end, let me know if you want to play some Stratego. :)

For D&D, sticking to a first-person point of view maximizes immersion for me, and that's my main goal. Unless the character is flying high above, a birds-eye view is a third-person view. And it's the view of a bird, not of the character!

That view makes it difficult or impossible to act with agency but without metagaming ("I randomly move to the right 3 squares, when lo! I can now see my friend in trouble, and take action. What luck!"). Note here that intentionally disadvantaging your choice is still metagaming, and that randomizing your choice lacks agency. Whether I'm trying to use or ignore the extra information, it's invariably a distraction for me.

As far as old-school vs new-school goes, I'll add that the more abstract combat is supposed to be in the rules, and the longer the rounds, the less valuable specific representation of position is. In fact, my experience is that miniatures used with old-school combat frequently introduce the issue of players overvaluing their specific placement on the table from moment to moment ("Look though, I have a clear shot to the enemy right here"). In newer additions with shorter rounds (that is, the closer it gets to why I play board games), that exact position may be more relevant each round.

Quote from: Arminius;984298Come on, Clash. Why does it matter whether you're running D&D or not? You've got games with squad-level combat, no? So how do you handle--and communicate--positioning? Traveller/Snapshot used maps and counters--it's not unique to D&D.

I know it's not unique to D&D, and I ran D&D for 20 years without minis or graph paper. I just meant most people here are running some version of D&D so anything I can say wouldn't mean much. I know D&D 3 and 4 really WANTED you to use minis or at least graph paper - it made things a LOT easier. I have no idea about D&D 5.

I like both. But I tend to play 95% of the time without minis. I will though hand out some for players to show marching order positions for example.

Otherwise its all theater of the mind and I keep track of positions mentally.

Sometimes the thought process in a round will be "Ok, the forward rush of three orcs are 50 ft away. This round they will cover 30ft and if any players advance too then they will be in melee. This guys here, this ones here, and this ones here."

Mostly keeping track of ranges and things like flanking or other maneuvers.

One of my friends though is very minis oriented. But uses a computer program to track and show the map and positions.

Either theatre of the mind, or we can bring out the replica weapons, thanks:).

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;984246Both, switching back and forth as required.

We're sort of like this. We use a grid and 6mm miniatures, but we have a lot of description and imagination in the combat descriptions, both from me (the GM) and the players.

I lean more towards Theatre of the Mind when I run games. But I'm open to minis and terrain in some types of Rpgs. I'm just more inclined to use rough range bands, and eyeball things than count squares or use detailed tactical rules with minis.

Quote from: Zalman;984315That view makes it difficult or impossible to act with agency but without metagaming ("I randomly move to the right 3 squares, when lo! I can now see my friend in trouble, and take action. What luck!"). Note here that intentionally disadvantaging your choice is still metagaming, and that randomizing your choice lacks agency. Whether I'm trying to use or ignore the extra information, it's invariably a distraction for me.

Isn'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?"

I like looking at minis from an artistic point of view. Some of them are beautiful.

But personally, I would never use them. Once I see a table with minis it pulls me to right out of the game. I much prefer to have it in my head like reading a good book where I visualize everything.

This can lead to a few misinterpretations but I find it a rare occurrence to be fair. Especially if players and the GM are used to playing through visualization. Anything too problematic and I can just do a quick map and send it through skype.

Again, nothing wrong with them, just not my thing...

I like the idea of both, but due to financial constraints, I almost exclusively do Theatre of the Mind-style combat.

I might buy some graph paper and use some of my Army Men as impromptu miniatures. My youngest brother (the one NOT in Antifa) has borrowed my Army Men for miniatures combat in D&D 5e before. We used the Green Army Men as the PC's and the Tan Army Men as the monsters.

I like minis. The visual representation appeals to me. I don't use grids. I use TotM, but its too vague to be my favorite method.

Oh and flyingmice, I haven't run or played D&D in years. ;)

Quote from: Simlasa;984243As much as I love miniatures and wargames there's no way stuff on the table is going to come close to what I can imagine.
I've played in groups that had big collections of Dwarven Forge scenics and they were, IMO, limiting on the game. Fun for a skirmish wargame, but too constricting for what I want in an RPG.
Same thing for virtual tabletops with all the bells and whistles turned on... felt like a boardgame and slowed things down.
At most, what I favor, if some visual aide is necessary, is a quick sketch on a whiteboard with some abstact tokens.
I don't really want all the props and handouts in a CoC game, but I'll do it because people expect it.

Same for me. I prefer totm, no grid or minis, maybe a scratched out map to help with relative positions if its complex and matters.

I played with grids etc 4e for 4 years and it was fun, but it required grids. I greatly prefer totm - improv, sidetreks and random encounters are simply easily done in this way - and I think because of that, the totm playstyle facilitates a more sandboxy game.

Quote from: Arminius;984255Part is esthetic--I feel the game's more vivid and more "first person" when visualized than when hovering over a bunch of figures and moving them around.

Yeah I also find this to be the case

I don't have very many miniatures. I have some  neat musketeers and cardinal's guard figures I'll use when needed for Flashing Blades swordfights, especially if I need to keep track of who is where in a larger fight. I have some cheap plastic Greek warrior types but haven't used them because they're ugly and just distract, but I'd like to get good ones for Heroes of Olympus or The Fantasy Trip. But most games I just do theater of the mind as usually exactitude doesn't matter and getting the right miniatures would be cumbersome and expensive.

I have never owned or played with minis. I'm kinda interested in checking them out now but not really for play just collecting or painting.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;984344I like the idea of both, but due to financial constraints, I almost exclusively do Theatre of the Mind-style combat.

I might buy some graph paper and use some of my Army Men as impromptu miniatures. My youngest brother (the one NOT in Antifa) has borrowed my Army Men for miniatures combat in D&D 5e before. We used the Green Army Men as the PC's and the Tan Army Men as the monsters.

I find if you are going to go cheap, it can be best to use something like glass gaming beads or poker chips as minis. You get the benefit of people knowing exactly where everything is, but people still need to engage their imagination to see the characters.

There 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.

Still, nothing really wrong with using army men.

The vast majority of the time, I'm doing theater of the mind. I don't need to know exactly where everyone is--I can call for some kind of Athletics roll to get a character where he wants to be.

The exception would be D&D 3.X/Pathfinder, because so many of the character abilities interact with precise movement and relative location. In Pathfinder, if we don't use miniatures and a grid, it just means my character is going to get screwed out of using his three Cleave-related Feats, because however close the kobolds are, they're just never quite close enough. ("You want to Cleave? *sigh* Okay, fine, if you must, here's one kobold you can Cleave during this encounter. There, I threw you a bone--happy now?") I mean, come on, we're in a twenty-foot by twenty-foot room, we all know they're close enough together to Cleave, and I'm playing a Martial character, so I've already volunteered to suck--you can't deign to let me use my damned character abilities, why?    

And it's not like I'm demanding that someone else should spend hundreds of dollars on minis and maps--I have a box full of dungeon tiles and a freakin' popcorn tin full of those old plastic D&D minis from a few years ago. Just tell me before I come over to your house that we're doing a pick-up game of D&D, and I'll bring them.

Quote from: Zalman;984315As far as old-school vs new-school goes, I'll add that the more abstract combat is supposed to be in the rules, and the longer the rounds, the less valuable specific representation of position is. In fact, my experience is that miniatures used with old-school combat frequently introduce the issue of players overvaluing their specific placement on the table from moment to moment ("Look though, I have a clear shot to the enemy right here"). In newer additions with shorter rounds (that is, the closer it gets to why I play board games), that exact position may be more relevant each round.

Yes, I recently noticed that too. The OD&D/AD&D 1 minute combat round works very well with theatre of the mind, it forces you not to think in terms of precise positioning the way 6-second rounds do.

Grids are OK but can be too fussy. Pure ToTM can be too loose.

We usually sketch out quick situation maps, and use X's and O's, like in football playbook diagrams. So we know placement and flanks and relative distance between combatants and how movement/maneuver can change things.

Quote from: Baulderstone;984454I find if you are going to go cheap, it can be best to use something like glass gaming beads or poker chips as minis. You get the benefit of people knowing exactly where everything is, but people still need to engage their imagination to see the characters.

There 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.

Still, nothing really wrong with using army men.

Exactly! Even with fantasy minis they are seldom exactly what's being depicted. Just throws me off big time. "I'll aim at the Goblin, err, Orc, oh whatever its,supposed to be."

Quote from: rgrove0172;984508Exactly! Even with fantasy minis they are seldom exactly what's being depicted. Just throws me off big time. "I'll aim at the Goblin, err, Orc, oh whatever its,supposed to be."

That's partly why I use 6mm minis. First, they're so cheap, you can get pretty much everything you need, especially with most places being very accommodating if you don't want the "army" packs and selling you sprue-sized batches of figures. Second, they're small enough that if you paint one green and say green are orcs and another of the same mini blue and say blue are goblins, people* are unlikely to argue.

*does not apply to therpgsite members. They'll argue about anything or nothing.

:p

This is a divide that been present since the beginning of the hobby. And one heavily influenced by how the referee thinks and like running a campaign. The important thing that is both can be made to work. And one can alternate between using whatever is best for the circumstances.

For me it cuts down on what I have to describe. Also because of my hearing losses using miniatures is a great help making sure I understand what the players want to do. And because I been at at so long I have a lot of parts and pieces which allows me to to inject a bit of Cecil de Mille style spectacle into the game when desired for example.

A Dungeon after the party explored the last room.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1295[/ATTACH]

The Plaza of the Gods in the City-State of Invincible Overlord
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1296[/ATTACH]

The riot in full swing.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1297[/ATTACH]

The dead
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1298[/ATTACH]

Forgot to say I often will just use little square cardboard drawings with an arrow to indicate facing, like the ones that came with the TSR Marvel Super Heroes game and Vilains and Vigilantes still uses. Cheap and easy to make, and fun because you can customize far better than any figure you could buy.

Theater of the mind. I did enjoy my time playing 4th edition with miniatures, but I don't see a reason to do it with other RPGs.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984218Title says it all. What's your preference? Got a main reason or is just what you prefer?

Hexmaps and counters, almost always.

Main reason is that I started with TFT Melee and GURPS Man To Man, which are arena combat games, using hexes and counters, usually with near-equal opponents and victory, death or dismemberment mostly determined by what specifically happens on the hex map. You can be three times as skilled as your opponents, but if one of them gets behind you with an axe, you may be about to die. So the play is about facing mapped tactical situation and figuring out how to move and what to do to maximize your chances of survival and victory. This is the main (or one of the main) focuses of play for me, and without mapped tactical combat, a RPG is missing one of the main things I enjoy about RPGs.

If you tell me I'm facing a combat situation, I always want to be able to see the layout of the land and the positions of everyone, and choose where to move and how to fight, and if that's not available and significant, then a lot is missing for me.

Quote from: Dumarest;984572Forgot to say I often will just use little square cardboard drawings with an arrow to indicate facing, like the ones that came with the TSR Marvel Super Heroes game and Vilains and Vigilantes still uses. Cheap and easy to make, and fun because you can customize far better than any figure you could buy.

I remember shortly after 3E came out, that D20 line that White Wolf put out a set of punch out counters for every monster in the Monster Manual. That came in very handy.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984218Title says it all. What's your preference? Got a main reason or is just what you prefer?

I 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.

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.

It 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.

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.

What about just "description"

Quote from: Baulderstone;984711I remember shortly after 3E came out, that D20 line that White Wolf put out a set of punch out counters for every monster in the Monster Manual. That came in very handy.

I was not aware of that. That was in my decade of RPG wilderness.

In that its the miniatures themselves (and silly stand in terrain) that distract me so much I tried an experiment. I figured if the objects used to represent the characters and environment were generic enough they wouldnt infringe on the player's imagination. (Far easier to imagine a chess piece is a Druid than a Thief miniature standing in, you know?)

So I took a 4'x4' sheet of plywood, trimmed it out and painted a graph on it, then aged it with ink and ash. Looked pretty neat. Then I hounded the craft stores for a month and bought every little piece of wood I could find (shapes, dowel pieces, blocks, etc.) and cut up some random pieces of lumbar - then stained them all to match. This massive chest full of wood bits were my miniatures and terrain. (I would set out some large blocks like 6"x 12" as buildings, lay down some straight pieces for walls, use some half round bits as tress and brush, drop in some barrels and crates etc.) It worked pretty well as I would designate pieces as being the various participants in the battle for whatever. (These pawns are the wolves, this Queen piece here is their Druid master... and so on)

I though it would be great, the answer to all my problems..and then I used it. It looked pretty neat out there on the table but instantly we werent seeing our characters in combat but little wooden pieces moving around a game board. Even with completely generic acoutrements the effect was the same. Project =failure.

Its TOTM for me from now on.

I'm happy with theatre of the mind (perhaps with an occasional drawing or something if positioning is becoming confusing) for more abstract systems.

But I also enjoy more tactical games using a grid and either miniatures or tokens. In college, I shifted to counters for my gaming due to the challenges of miniatures, but I still like the idea of miniatures.

Counters had some advantages: You can stack them more densely than miniatures when appropriate. Facing is more apparent. You can have various status counters, or counters for dropped gear. You can easily put a PCs counter on their horse counter (though I think I have used horse counters with miniatures). I have several sets of numbered counters in different colors (blue are the trolls, green are the orcs).

I haven't decided if we will use counters and deck plans for combat in my Classic Traveller games... My OD&D PbP are almost purely theatre of the mind.

Frank

Quote from: rgrove0172;984764I though it would be great, the answer to all my problems..and then I used it. It looked pretty neat out there on the table but instantly we werent seeing our characters in combat but little wooden pieces moving around a game board. Even with completely generic acoutrements the effect was the same. Project =failure.

Its TOTM for me from now on.

I'm going to make a wild guess that your experiment was slightly flawed in that you made the presentation too consistent.  You made it look abstract, but you made it look good at the same time.  I've seen similar issues in our group when I get a little too consistent in the presentation.

I also made some wood tiles for dungeon crawling.  But when I use them, I use Lego miniatures for characters, miscellaneous tokens for allies, and different glass beads as opponents.  It's ugly as hell.  So there's no tendency to see it as a thing off itself.  It's strictly spatial representation.  Even using Lego minis for opponents (ones that fit) can be a bridge too far for us.

What Steven said. My 13th Age players all had their preferred miniature that they brought with them for the very simple positioning system we used for that game (i.e., who was engaged with whom, who was off at far range, who was in closing range--but all the monsters were different sizes of six-siders.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984764
I though it would be great, the answer to all my problems..and then I used it. It looked pretty neat out there on the table but instantly we werent seeing our characters in combat but little wooden pieces moving around a game board. Even with completely generic acoutrements the effect was the same. Project =failure.

Its TOTM for me from now on.

Neat experiment!

We 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.

Or, in the terms of this thread, the meta-gaming nature of keeping track of the bad guys was pulling them out of immersion. Whereas, the minis didn't because most of my player's imaginations revolve around how their characters act rather than specifics of the looks. (And with 6mm minis, it was pretty simple and cheap to paint a mini using their character's colors.)

This is one of the first posts on my blog, back in July of 2009. I'll repost it here, because it's easier on you all:

Abstract Tactics

That post title... that's like Military Intelligence or Jumbo Shrimp, right? An Oxymoron? Ummmm.... no. I'm really going to talk about abstract tactics today. I'll wait while the room empties...

OK. Everyone out who's going to leave? Good. That leaves the sleeping wino in the corner and that confused looking foreign tourist. Lets begin.

First the definition of tactics, from general RPG usage;

1. The use of miniatures to show exact position in a conflict.

2. Fiddly maneuvers which require knowledge of exact position to work. See miniatures.

Doesn't leave much room for "Abstractness", does it?

Until very recently, with the common use of GPS tranceivers, no one knew the exact position of anyone in an actual battle. In a general sense, that group was over there, and that other group was somewhere over there, but exact position? No. Clausewitz wrote: "The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently -- like the effect of a fog or moonshine -- gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."

So... No one can use tactics in a real military battle? Of course they can!

Now the definition of tactics from Dictionary.com

1.   (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2.   (used with a plural verb) the maneuvers themselves.
3.   (used with a singular verb) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

I particularly want to focus on definition 3, although all three definitions are perfectly valid. Tactics are any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. Nothing about exact position, nothing about clear knowledge of the battle.

Player: "I'll delay my move in order to circle around for a better shot." i.e. maneuver for enfilade.
GM: "OK, you move down to last in initiative, but you'll get +X when you go."

Player: "Joe and I will keep their heads down with cover fire while you guys rush in, then you cover us." i.e. fire and maneuver aka leapfrogging.
GM: "Cool. Let's see how good you pull it off. I'll use your degree of success as a minus for them."

Player: "Rats! They're moving before we're ready! I'll rush my shot to get ahead of them, and maybe blunt their attack." i.e. getting inside of the enemy's decision loop - maneuver for disruption.
GM: "OK, take a -X, but you'll go before them."

These are abstract tactics, using GM rulings in place of rules. No miniatures are needed, and the participants don't have a definite idea of their opponents' disposition, but they are real tactics.

As designers, we can create rules for abstract tactics, taking the load off GMs by making ad-hoc rulings less frequent or unnecessary. By assuming a combat round of flowing maneuver rather than a static slugfest, and making rules to enable this, combat can be exciting without minis and grids.

Here's some techniques I use for abstract tactics:

1. Make combat rounds longer - I use one minute rounds to have time for maneuver.
2. Assume a lot goes on that's not detailed. Most shots fired in combat have no chance of hitting, In swordfights most swings are blocked and aren't ever going to connect. In a long round, I assume bullets are flying everywhere, sword blows are parried like lighting, and there's no need to roll because they are never going to hit anything. Players only roll when there is a decent chance that their shot will hit - i.e. their initiative.
3. Allow free maneuver - in a long round, you can move a long way. Only roll for skill checks when something difficult is attempted. If you're going to use gymnastics to vault an opponent to get behind him, you roll. Circling to the flank unopposed won't - it just takes time.
4. Use initiative as a tool. I allow trading inititative for bonuses or minuses - rushing a shot gains a minus. taking longer for maneuvering gains a plus.
5. Make cover count. I use abstract modifiers for cover - that cover might be worth a -25% penalty, or -2 dice, or whatever is appropriate - so I don't have to know the terrain, and neither do my players.
6. Make firing for supression worth doing. Using your initiative to provide cover for your buddies should gain you tangible benefits. I base those benefits on the degree of success the supression has.

Now what works in your games can be very different, but these techniques work fine in mine. Combat zips along, and it's still fun and flexible.

Quote from: ffilz;984771...
Counters had some advantages: You can stack them more densely than miniatures when appropriate. Facing is more apparent. You can have various status counters, or counters for dropped gear. You can easily put a PCs counter on their horse counter (though I think I have used horse counters with miniatures). I have several sets of numbered counters in different colors (blue are the trolls, green are the orcs). ...

Exactly. The facing and ID of everyone is clear. Especially now with computers and printers, it's pretty easy to make counters. (It wasn't that hard before with drawing and/or using photocopiers with shrinking features, and the various TFT (http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/meleemg3cont.jpg) microgames (http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/wizardmg61978cont.jpg) & programmed adventures (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJp1Q6496iw/TzTEOfqCNkI/AAAAAAAAC1Y/0MnWuQxlAG0/s1600/deathtest2.jpg) came with a pretty good range of counters.) And now you can find player-made counters (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ICHrWqEvcqc/U2UfMybixRI/AAAAAAAADpU/eh-zh9vFzsg/s1600/how_sheet2C.jpg) and usable images online too. The images can be fairly specific or more abstract (I've not had a problem with keeping my imagination going with flat counters - they're clearly representations, while a miniature (especially painted in detail) looks vividly like what the miniature is, which is rarely quite what is actually in the game.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1315[/ATTACH]

Being used to using very explicit rules for movement & combat, abstract combats tend to bother me because what determines who can do what, instead of being clear from the map & rules, becomes about communication with the GM and the GM's imagination versus that of the players. It can work fine as long as players & GM stay in sync, but it bothers me when they don't, especially when I think things would go very differently if we were using a map & counters. It particularly seems like a problem to me when there are some thoughtful detailed tactical players (e.g. me) and some impatient, apathetic, verbally insistent or aggressive players who want to do things that I'm pretty sure would not work at all like they expect if we mapped it out. Particularly with long actions and tactics that sound like they could work but would be entirely dependent on the shape of the terrain and where everyone is (e.g. outflanking, moving for a clearer shot, and in general choosing who is able to attack whom when and in what way, which is perhaps the main thing that determines what happens in a group combat with similar ability levels). It can end up seeming rather unfair and based on whether the GM can be swayed to think your idea will work or not, which can end up seeming a lot like a verbal persuasion game of what sounds cool, and also an emotional boundaries manipulation game of what can the players get the GM to allow because the GM doesn't want to disappoint the players by popping their balloon of what they seem attached to thinking is a cool idea. (e.g. the already-mentioned "I use gymnastics to vault over the enemy to get a rear attack.")

Nice post, flyingmice.

Something I like about abstraction is that it can keep the game more fresh. When we played D&D 3.x, the game had very specific rules for combat. At first that was fun as we learned how to use those rules. However, once we had those rules down, it lead to combat feeling very much the same. I got sick of it in a way that I never get sick of the far more abstract rules for B/X. We were playing the same tactical minis game several time every Sunday for a few years.

Another issue that I have with more tactical mini rules is that it very is a break from the continuity of the rest of the game. With abstract combat, the combat feels more part of the rest of the game. With 3.x, we would take a break from playing an RPG to play with minis for a while, and then go back to the RPG.

Another issue for me is speed of combat. I like combat to move very quickly when I GM. When a fight breaks out in an RPG, the players are usually pumped. The longer the fight goes on, especially with minis, the more detached the players get. The fight may have started with the player and an NPC exchanging cutting insults, but by the 30 minute mark, everyone is more likely to be just playing a board game, sliding their piece around for optimal success.

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.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;985733I groan.

You don't say?;)

Quote from: Bren;985722You don't have (nor does anyone else have) anywhere near enough data to draw that conclusion.

Theres a question mark at the end of the sentence, hence it was more of a question than statement.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;985733Theater 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.

Im right with you. Playing a tactical miniatures game can be fun but I dont like it mixing with my RP. Keep the action in my head and not on the table in front of me for sure.

I have done both, and also a hybrid using minis or markers on a free form table.

My preferences are using Theatre of the Mind or tokens to show relative positions but no measuring.

The one exception is for Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok in which combat is played on a hex grid with rules that actually make it fun. Sort of a miniatures skirmish game, but also engaging roleplaying elements.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;985733Theater 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.

I gotten pretty quick at it. The trick is to keep the setup within the time you take to verbally describe the area. Using the miniatures and grid to reinforce what you are describing. Don't try to set it everything out to the Nth degree but enough to serve as a reminder where the major details are. For example I have a scribe desk with scrolls and stuff. It rarely exactly like the miniature but it a useful reminder to the players that "Hey there is a desk with scroll and shit on it.".

Also I am not into movement points. The grid is a quick measurement tool, and it still begins with the players describe what he wants to do. The miniature is a reminder to me that I heard the player correctly and to the party as an aspect of situational awareness.

If using the stuff is bogging the game down the referee needs to rethink his technique and organization. It will never be as fast as theater of the mind but it doesn't need to be a slog either.

Ok, so some things I like about using miniatures or tokens/counters:

It's easy to see and manipulate marching order.

It can be used to give a quick idea of how things are laid out. At this level, it can be used with mostly theater of the mind combat, but we have a rough idea of who is where without asking questions every time someone's turn is up. This is the level I used when I played OD&D face to face. I would lay out a pencil or two on the table (no grid) to show walls and doorways.

While there are games where theater of the mind works and is fun, I also enjoy games where there is a more tactical combat. Of the games I played any great amount, D&D 3.x was the most rigid. It was fun, but did become too much. I have also enjoyed games that weren't so rigid, we would still count hexes/squares for movement, but things like attacks of opportunity and flanking were not so rigidly handled. The latter is how I play RuneQuest 2. In these games, combat may still take a while, but with players who enjoy it, it's fun. In those games, there are typically only a few combats in a session (depending on session length), and in those games, I don't do things like mega-dungeons, those would be too much of a drag with 1-4 combats per session (in some of them also, characters are a lot more fragile, so one good combat may be all a party can handle without a retreat to camp for rest and healing).

These days, especially with almost all of my gaming being play by post, theater of the mind rules. I may never get to play those tactical games again... (sadly, my favorite from college is not only very tactical in combat, but also very strategic in choosing how to spend treasure to acquire a good mix of mostly potions and other limited use magic - casual players just don't seem to be committed to the exercise).

Frank

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

I like Big Andy's and Chirine Be Kal's responses on this. But, judging from this thread, I think you're partially right, but I wonder if that's dependent on how the minis are used.

Looking at other threads, most of the old-style players and GMs seem to like strategy and tactics type play, but then in this thread complain about that type of play using minis. So it may be it isn't just the presence of minis, but how the minis create "too much meta-gaming" and convert a roll/role-playing game into a wargame.

The most "tactical" we get with minis is checking range and movement. (And we use hex/grid, so there is no measuring tape involved.) So the minis are 90% there to remind people how many bad guys there are. Minis certainly don't slow down our game, since the time spent physically moving the mini replaces the time spent asking "can I move to be close enough to hit the bad guy". But our game doesn't really consider strategy or tactics -- and my players will role-play even in combat, which is fun.

Quote from: Tod13;985922I like Big Andy's and Chirine Be Kal's responses on this. But, judging from this thread, I think you're partially right, but I wonder if that's dependent on how the minis are used.

Looking at other threads, most of the old-style players and GMs seem to like strategy and tactics type play, but then in this thread complain about that type of play using minis. So it may be it isn't just the presence of minis, but how the minis create "too much meta-gaming" and convert a roll/role-playing game into a wargame.

It is interesting that those who got into the game from wargaming don't seem to want to keep that aspect in the game. I suppose for them, if they wanted to do that part of it, they'd be doing a wargame.

QuoteThe most "tactical" we get with minis is checking range and movement. (And we use hex/grid, so there is no measuring tape involved.) So the minis are 90% there to remind people how many bad guys there are. Minis certainly don't slow down our game, since the time spent physically moving the mini replaces the time spent asking "can I move to be close enough to hit the bad guy". But our game doesn't really consider strategy or tactics -- and my players will role-play even in combat, which is fun.

My D&D group, OTOH, are trying to do tactics. We are playing the party with a shield wall of hirelings between the wizard and the enemy and adapting to terrain and doing skirmishing or setting up choke points and all the 'real life strategy' we can pull out of the game... ...until you ask to measure distance. We use minis (or more often dice) to set up relative position, but grids and tape measures don't come out. S/M/L range for the javelin crew is whatever looks like it would be S/M/L range. As my DM says, "it's not like the initial setup I'm giving you was designed down to 3-4 significant digits, so if you are diligently measuring the distance between you and your enemies in 5' increments when I know you are 'somewhere between 100 and 120 feat apart,' you're inventing false precision."

Quote from: Willie the Duck;985932
S/M/L range for the javelin crew is whatever looks like it would be S/M/L range. As my DM says, "it's not like the initial setup I'm giving you was designed down to 3-4 significant digits, so if you are diligently measuring the distance between you and your enemies in 5' increments when I know you are 'somewhere between 100 and 120 feat apart,' you're inventing false precision."

I probably should have mentioned that in our homebrew, we have a max range for magic or missile weapons that is based on character level. So, it is pretty binary. :-)

Huh. Not only do I not find mapped combat slow (once the GM knows the rules, and requires players to say what they do right away when it's their turn), and find that it pulls me into my character's position to be on the map, and makes me feel excluded/dissociated to not be able to see the map during combat, but I have also seen using counter placements outside combat draw players into a situation and to do interesting things that wouldn't happen if they didn't have a counter showing where they were at the moment.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;985932It is interesting that those who got into the game from wargaming don't seem to want to keep that aspect in the game. I suppose for them, if they wanted to do that part of it, they'd be doing a wargame.

I came in from wargaming, so maybe yes.

I think part of it for us is that the majority of the group has no wargaming experience (or inclinations), and tend to be the types that never quite learn all the nuances of the rules.  They need the GM or one of the other players to somewhat interpret the grid for them, beyond the obvious rough positioning aspects.   If the player has to ask, "Can I do X?" then the grid isn't helping all that much, but still has the other costs (setup and imagination issues).  

Of course, it might be that if we used the grid more, that over time these players would learn.  Past history doesn't seem to suggest they would, at least not at any discernible speed.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;985984Of course, it might be that if we used the grid more, that over time these players would learn.  Past history doesn't seem to suggest they would, at least not at any discernible speed.

It helps when the referee acts as a mentor and a teacher rather than looking for gotchas. My basic trick with this is have the player describe first and then worry about the moving the piece second (or roll for that matter). The experienced players will just reach out and move the mini himself. For those unsure or new to how I use minis and maps, after they are done, I move their miniature for them. Then politely ask for confirmation. Then move on the next player.

It helps to be causal about using the grid as well. There are times when I will count hexes/squares precisely but that for situations where the PCs are racing the clock and every second counts. Other wise I eyeball it and if it looks right, the miniature is moved and that is that.

Quote from: estar;985986It helps when the referee acts as a mentor and a teacher rather than looking for gotchas. My basic trick with this is have the player describe first and then worry about the moving the piece second (or roll for that matter). The experienced players will just reach out and move the mini himself. For those unsure or new to how I use minis and maps, after they are done, I move their miniature for them. Then politely ask for confirmation. Then move on the next player. ...

I do something like this, too, and find I can have even children and players with no rules knowledge fighting as effectively as their characters should. If they move or act in a way I think their character would understand has problems, I explain that to them and modify the details of the move to suit, unless they say they want to do it that way anyway. Even without learning the rules, most players I've done this with have tended to learn how to move and act pretty well in combat by watching what happens and from how I describe what happens.

I don't narrate actions in rules and numbers, as much as I can avoid it. That is, I don't say "Orc 7 takes the All-Out-Attack maneuver and sidesteps two hexes and does an attack for +2 damage, but rolls a 12 which misses with the -3 penalty for running over those dead bodies during the attack." Instead I put my hand on the orc's counter and  might say something like "The hairy orc roars and charges maniacally with his axe, putting all his weight into a swing at Budrik, but he stumbles a bit on Grom's body, misses, and seems to be unready to defend himself at the moment."

Quote from: estar;985986It helps when the referee acts as a mentor and a teacher rather than looking for gotchas. My basic trick with this is have the player describe first and then worry about the moving the piece second (or roll for that matter). The experienced players will just reach out and move the mini himself. For those unsure or new to how I use minis and maps, after they are done, I move their miniature for them. Then politely ask for confirmation. Then move on the next player.

That has been my approach to teaching systems since I first started as a teen.  It was very effective with my first group in high school, and worked more or less as you have suggested.  For most rules, it does work great.  Some of the current players, for a few tactical grid things, not so much.  We are hitting our 30 year mark this fall (albeit playing different systems over that time), and there are some tactical aspects of rules in any system that simply will not stick, no matter what I do.  And it is very much a rules thing, too.  

For example, if one of them is playing a lightly-armored archer, then they get the idea that avoiding melee is a good idea in most situations.  If they've got a burly friend, they'll say, "Hang back about 50 feet from Joe and start shooting."  If I tell them an orc is edging around the flank to try to get at them, they'll react intelligently.  Put them on a grid, and it's as if that part of their brain simply turns off.  That orc can execute the same plan, and I still need to explicitly say that it is rounding the flank with blood in its eyes for the light bulb to even flicker.  

For a long time I fought it, until finally I just accepted it.  Reminds me of a high school kid I tutored in college.  She was well ahead in almost all high school math, nailing the complicated parts of trigonometry, but had a blind spot about certain basics in geometry that were killing her ability to get the right answer.  

At least it makes switching from the grid, then off, then back again a trivial exercise.  I've made a virtue out of necessity there.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;985932It is interesting that those who got into the game from wargaming don't seem to want to keep that aspect in the game. I suppose for them, if they wanted to do that part of it, they'd be doing a wargame.

Count this former wargamer as someone still quite happy to do wargamey RPG combat, it just has to be in the right venue. I'm more happy now than I was 15 years ago with playing games with more abstract combat systems. But would still be quite happy to whip out the minis and battle mats.

Frank

Quote from: Willie the Duck;985932It is interesting that those who got into the game from wargaming don't seem to want to keep that aspect in the game. I suppose for them, if they wanted to do that part of it, they'd be doing a wargame.

My point was more that people from that background find it difficult or impossible to treat the minis as springboards for imagination and seem stuck in the "minis must be treated as a wargame" mindset.

Not so much.

It's just I don't like the cumbersomeness and the switch in and out of "types" of play.

You also need to learn how to ask the referee questions.  "Is there something I can take cover behind" is a great question, because it gives the referee both an inquiry and a tentative statement of intent.  Much better than "what's in the room."

Of course, that's also why the OD&D one minute combat turn is genius.  Saying "I want to spend this turn getting in range" is a perfectly acceptable statement, and in a minute, especially down in a dungeon, you'll have plenty of time to do it.

Of course, it requires the players to trust the referee and the referee to not be a shitnozzle, but more about that in the upcoming "FKR Manifesto."

95% of my gaming over the years has been without miniatures. I actually prefer to use miniatures or tokens to represent characters and monsters. I think it's easier to do combat that way, regardless of whether it's OD&D or not.

Quote from: ffilz;985830It can be used to give a quick idea of how things are laid out. At this level, it can be used with mostly theater of the mind combat, but we have a rough idea of who is where without asking questions every time someone's turn is up. This is the level I used when I played OD&D face to face. I would lay out a pencil or two on the table (no grid) to show walls and doorways.

Quote from: Tod13;985922The most "tactical" we get with minis is checking range and movement. (And we use hex/grid, so there is no measuring tape involved.) So the minis are 90% there to remind people how many bad guys there are. Minis certainly don't slow down our game, since the time spent physically moving the mini replaces the time spent asking "can I move to be close enough to hit the bad guy".

Quote from: Willie the Duck;985932We use minis (or more often dice) to set up relative position, but grids and tape measures don't come out. S/M/L range for the javelin crew is whatever looks like it would be S/M/L range. As my DM says, "it's not like the initial setup I'm giving you was designed down to 3-4 significant digits, so if you are diligently measuring the distance between you and your enemies in 5' increments when I know you are 'somewhere between 100 and 120 feat apart,' you're inventing false precision."

All of this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986010You also need to learn how to ask the referee questions.  "Is there something I can take cover behind" is a great question, because it gives the referee both an inquiry and a tentative statement of intent.  Much better than "what's in the room."

I agree that the former question is better than the latter one. BUT, if I really have no clue what's in the room (e.g. pillars, altar, draperies) I feel disassociated from the scene, like I am listening to a radio play (where the location is vague to non-existent) rather than playing a character in another world.

Quote from: Tod13;986009My point was more that people from that background find it difficult or impossible to treat the minis as springboards for imagination and seem stuck in the "minis must be treated as a wargame" mindset.

That's an interesting idea.

Quote from: Bren;986026I agree that the former question is better than the latter one. BUT, if I really have no clue what's in the room (e.g. pillars, altar, draperies) I feel disassociated from the scene, like I am listening to a radio play (where the location is vague to non-existent) rather than playing a character in another world.

I describe important or very noticeable objects in a room.  But any room might have "miscellaneous scraps of dungeon trash" that a clever player might find useful.  I don't want to have to describe every pebble and broken dagger.

As always, the truth lies somewhere between "LIVE FREE OR DIE" and "Famous Potatoes!"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986027I describe important or very noticeable objects in a room.  But any room might have "miscellaneous scraps of dungeon trash" that a clever player might find useful.

Of course and I wouldn't expect (nor as the GM would I describe) every bit of minutia. But you were talking about things large enough for a player to take cover behind. Pebbles, daggers, bits or even small piles of refuse aren't going to provide protection from attacks or concealment.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;984964Honestly, 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.

Same here.

I also think there is a huge difference between using minis, coins, pogs, dice, books, or sketches on a whiteboard/plastic overlay/scrap of paper to give a rough visual and using a grid. I am a wargamer and will say, that using a grid moves it into wargame territory for me, as Tod13 and Willie suggested. It is the grid that ends theater of the mind style combat for me rather than some rough physical representation. Every time someone has suggested we play game X that uses a grid, all I can think is that I already wargame and that scratches that itch for me plenty.

And when we use minis or whatever, most time they never move after the initial set up, once everyone has a rough idea of where everything is at. We might adjust if the combat get convoluted or someone wants another guesstimate on where everybody is at, but that is it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;986027I describe important or very noticeable objects in a room.  But any room might have "miscellaneous scraps of dungeon trash" that a clever player might find useful.  I don't want to have to describe every pebble and broken dagger.

Very much so. Nor, outside, the overall topology of every hillock and copse of trees. Let the players ask if there's a elevation gradient and I'll decide on the fly what I think it is. It could go for or against the party, so it's not coddling them.

QuoteAs always, the truth lies somewhere between "LIVE FREE OR DIE" and "Famous Potatoes!"

The older I get, the more this applies to... well, everything, really... but specifically every aspect of gaming. People have these grand theories and all that online. But I've never seen a real game where the truth isn't more, "whatever, we sit down and play a game."

Quote from: Bren;986030Of course and I wouldn't expect (nor as the GM would I describe) every bit of minutia. But you were talking about things large enough for a player to take cover behind. Pebbles, daggers, bits or even small piles of refuse aren't going to provide protection from attacks or concealment.

Tables, chairs, piles of fallen tile, fallen plaster (OMG, plaster and old buildings...!). Real ruins are hip deep in just random stuff. But beyond that, small alcoves. corners, turns. The point is, once you have the whole environment defined, you are likely to end up with a very squared off building which looks like a modern apartment building (and not nooks or crannies or coat closets unless you specifically think of them) with nothing extraneous in it. That is frankly the unrealistic outcome (well, calling anything unrealistic in a world full of conveniently located dungeons...) because real structures are messy, both architecturally and as in full of junk. People would be able to find cover--at least some of the time. And abstracting that out and/or putting it in when the players ask about it saves you the burden of having to plan out what Room A1's original function was and whether it required any tables or other large furniture, etc. It's a convenience.

Quote from: Bren;985722You don't have (nor does anyone else have) anywhere near enough data to draw that conclusion.

First, what rgrove0172 said:).
Second, everyone of us is talking about his or her experience. I thought that to be obvious.

Quote from: rgrove0172;985760Theres a question mark at the end of the sentence, hence it was more of a question than statement.

It was, and is. Such shortcuts are useful when posting from a phone.
Also, thank you for pointing it out.

Quote from: Tod13;985922I like Big Andy's and Chirine Be Kal's responses on this. But, judging from this thread, I think you're partially right, but I wonder if that's dependent on how the minis are used.

I'm sure it depends on how the minis are used. Minis are, in the end, just a tool, like dice.
It's just that in my experience, they tend to combine poorly with theatre of the mind;).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;986161The point is, once you have the whole environment defined, you are likely to end up with a very squared off building which looks like a modern apartment building (and not nooks or crannies or coat closets unless you specifically think of them) with nothing extraneous in it.

You might. I might not. Here's a location (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/08/blue-owl-cave.html) I used for an underground adventure. Nothing square about it.

Quote from: AsenRG;986162Second, everyone of us is talking about his or her experience. I thought that to be obvious.

Well obviously your experience is wrong.

Quote from: Bren;986883You might. I might not. Here's a location (https://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2015/08/blue-owl-cave.html) I used for an underground adventure. Nothing square about it.

Well good. If you consistently have that available, or can do so on the fly, then this is unnecessary.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;985733Theater 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.

This is why if theres a big battle upcomming and I want to use minis then I try to schedule around it so it is next session. Effectively a separate event and then back to the norm. Rare. But its come up.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;986971Well good. If you consistently have that available, or can do so on the fly, then this is unnecessary.

Back in the day when I did megadungeons rough caverns, oddly shaped rooms, and chambers that didn't fit a square grid were very common. Nowadays I often use maps of actual caves and period floor plans so things are what they are and that usually isn't a square grid.

The perverse, "poke at people's pet peeves," side of my nature wants to write a simple dungeon crawling game that is played on a grid of off-set squares, combining features of both hexes and squares.  I used that for some homebrew designs in my teens, because it was easier to draw than hexes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984218Title says it all. What's your preference? Got a main reason or is just what you prefer?

I don't play wargames at a role-play session anymore. So all combat is handled in real-time in our minds at the speed of movie plot.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;988056I don't play wargames at a role-play session anymore. So all combat is handled in real-time in our minds at the speed of movie plot.

Fascinating. I'm not sure I understand the use of the word 'wargames' in an RPG context, though. I've done combats exactly the way you describe, and it's a lot of fun; other times, we've used the table as a sort of tactical display - but not in what I understand to be a 'wargame' context as it's used today. I'm fascinated by this - wonderful discussion!

EDIT: I wonder if this is an artifact of how I've sen D&D 4e being played? These games seem to fit my qualification as a wargame, and there's a lot less of what I'd think of as RPG play. Hmmm. Something to contemplate.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;988047The perverse, "poke at people's pet peeves," side of my nature wants to write a simple dungeon crawling game that is played on a grid of off-set squares, combining features of both hexes and squares.  I used that for some homebrew designs in my teens, because it was easier to draw than hexes.

Been done since at least the early 90s.

And heres my example pic for showing designers how to use squares to emulate hexes.

(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1955322_md.png)

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;988056I don't play wargames at a role-play session anymore. So all combat is handled in real-time in our minds at the speed of movie plot.

Which speed is that exactly? Are we talking Jim Jarmush, John Woo, Steven Spielberg, or what?

Quote from: Omega;988173Been done since at least the early 90s.

Much longer. For example below is a portion of the board for a Sci-Fi game called Godsfire. The board used offset squares instead of hexes with a spiral of additional squares label from (-5 to +5) to allow for a simple approximation of 3D movement.

Spoiler

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1496[/ATTACH]

I suspect one reason offset squares didn't catch on was that blank hex paper was fairly readily available by the late 1970s. Blank hex paper is what I used for my old D&D wilderness maps. I played in a D&D campaign in 1977-78 where we had fairly high level characters who did a lot of wilderness exploration where we as players used blank hex maps to record where we had traveled.

Theatre of the Mind, always.

Quote from: Bren;986883Well obviously your experience is wrong.

And you were in the mood where regeneration that's only preventable by acid or fire seemed like a good idea, I guess.

It does astound me the amount of effort some people go to in order to use minis. And the expense!  When it's really well done, it can be very impressive, but really, in a practical sense I find it just slows everything down without enough mitigating benefits.

Quote from: RPGPundit;989434It does astound me the amount of effort some people go to in order to use minis. And the expense!  When it's really well done, it can be very impressive, but really, in a practical sense I find it just slows everything down without enough mitigating benefits.

I think sometimes using the minis is the excuse for liking to paint and convert them. I use 6mm, which reduces cost.

For my players, we started without minis and then added them in, and I offered to run it either way. All my players liked using minis--it makes it easier for them to keep track of where everybody is. (But, as previously mentioned, we do not use the minis as a tactical wargame. And combat in the game I wrote runs really quickly.)

I really enjoy buying and painting minis, mostly the Reaper Bones to keep the cost down. I virtually never use them in combat. I just enjoy painting them. I see these elaborate setups people do with Dwarven Forge (recently saw someone do the entire Caves of Chaos) and always think, "Yeah, but what if the party decides to go to Hookhill instead?"

Quote from: fearsomepirate;989501I really enjoy buying and painting minis, mostly the Reaper Bones to keep the cost down. I virtually never use them in combat. I just enjoy painting them. I see these elaborate setups people do with Dwarven Forge (recently saw someone do the entire Caves of Chaos) and always think, "Yeah, but what if the party decides to go to Hookhill instead?"

That's my major objection to minis (and using elaborate interfaces for online play). As a GM it makes me prep in a way that encourages me to push players to places I have minis and layouts for.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;989501I really enjoy buying and painting minis, mostly the Reaper Bones to keep the cost down. I virtually never use them in combat. I just enjoy painting them. I see these elaborate setups people do with Dwarven Forge (recently saw someone do the entire Caves of Chaos) and always think, "Yeah, but what if the party decides to go to Hookhill instead?"

Yaa. I didn't think about scenery. We use a big erasable grid to draw the room or whatever. I have a few things like random vending machines, barrels, and the like that I might put out for fun. But yea, I have trouble imagining using the really big, complex scenery setups.

Quote from: Tod13;989488I think sometimes using the minis is the excuse for liking to paint and convert them.

While I derived some enjoyment from painting and converting minis, I derive more enjoyment from having minis that are painted and converted.

I'm not big on creating scenery though. The most effort I'll go to is drawing out a floor plan in large scale on a big sheet of paper ahead of time. I did that for a Hutt Palace for Star Wars. Two different parties paid the Hutt a visit for entirely different reasons so the amount of effort seemed justified. I also did a floor plan for a large bar/casino/sporting place for Star Wars. It showed up about half a dozen times with three different parties. That was a good investment in drawing time.

Quote from: Tod13;989488I think sometimes using the minis is the excuse for liking to paint and convert them. I use 6mm, which reduces cost.

That's always been the case, since Day One.  Modeling is a fun hobby in its own right.

No minis, full on minis with elaborate scenery like Dwarven Forge or like Chirine does, or something in between, all are fun.

I prefer Theater of the Mind for one reason, at the very root:

"Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it...Its streaming mane kindled and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs....His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadows about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils."

No picture, painting, miniature, or movie depiction of a Balrog is even a tiny fraction as awe-filled as the picture those words conjure in my mind.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989616"Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it...Its streaming mane kindled and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs....His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadows about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils."

But does it have wings (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:HiddenVale/Did_Balrogs_have_wings%3F)? (Ducks)

Quote from: estar;989649But does it have wings (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:HiddenVale/Did_Balrogs_have_wings%3F)? (Ducks)

Hey, don't drag me into this! :p

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989656Hey, don't drag me into this! :p

Just ask an old Traveller grognard about near-c rocks, space pirates, and Aslans in comfortable shoes. Then you will get dragged into it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;989434It does astound me the amount of effort some people go to in order to use minis. And the expense!  When it's really well done, it can be very impressive, but really, in a practical sense I find it just slows everything down without enough mitigating benefits.

And there you go - it is, in the end, all about play styles. I like to use props and stuff, you don't; I'd be happy to play in one of your games, and I think you'd have fun in one of mine. :)

Quote from: chirine ba kal;989778And there you go - it is, in the end, all about play styles. I like to use props and stuff, you don't; I'd be happy to play in one of your games, and I think you'd have fun in one of mine. :)

In other words, it's like 90% of all discussions on Internet:D!

I'd play whatever is on offer, but as a rule, I'm with Gronan on that. Minis are nice, but I don't have the space for them, and I really don't have a special effects budget that can get even close to what my mind regularly conjures;)!

Quote from: Tod13;989488I think sometimes using the minis is the excuse for liking to paint and convert them. I use 6mm, which reduces cost.

Yeah, that probably accounts for the majority of it. It's a whole separate hobby, one I have no interest in (what with my serious lack of artistic ability).