Theater of Mind vs Theater of Grid

[Trickster]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

[Demonslayer666]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?

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

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

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

Both.

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

False dichotomy. Demonslayer666 covered the rest of it.

[Theodoxus]

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

[Skrum]

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

[Waazraath]

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

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

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

[sithlordnergal]

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

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


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

Spoiler: ALso, when I say "traps in combat" this is what I mean. This is an encounter I made for a DM in a gamer I play in. They wanted a proper Bandit Ambush, I gave them one. Its a bit funny, but my own character died to the traps I set up...probably my funniest death ever in a game.

Show

[Kane0]

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

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

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

[sithlordnergal]

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

...You would not enjoy my dungeons XD

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

[Kane0]

...You would not enjoy my dungeons XD

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

[Witty Username]

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

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

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

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

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

[LudicSavant]

What is arguably better? A grid or descriptions?

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

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

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

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

[sithlordnergal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

[Darth Credence]

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

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

[Schwann145]

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

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

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

[Tawmis]

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

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

[Easy e]

Controversial take ahead... maybe?

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

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

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

[da newt]

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

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

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

[Catullus64]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

What is the purpose of combat in a TTRPG? It is a point of conflict that the PCs need to overcome, and the chosen method is violence.

Sometimes. Here are two situations that resolve that conflict without violence.

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

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

Pass without trace works there also.

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

Therefore, the only real question is, do the PCs overcome the challenge or not?

Not the only, but certainly an important one.

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

Yes. Good point.

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

Pretty good assessment, and also applies to our Blades in the Dark game.

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

Each group of players, heck, each player, will have a different approach to that. I've see folks on the grid not really pay attention to the optimal.

[Easy e]

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

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

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

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

[Schwann145]

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

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

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

[stoutstien]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Imbalance]

I'm a toy collector, so...

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

...so, both.