I run combat on a grid, and I've done so for decades.
Last session though, it was odd for the major combat that occupied about 3/4 of the session, we just never set up the battle mat. I think it happened that way because the battlefield itself was very large and complex ( a large jungle prison camp compound, under military assault that was being conducted by someone other than the players ), and when it battle down the party was split across three different locations in the prison compound. It was a fun challenge for me as DM: 2 separate mini-combats, going on in the same shared setting, while trying to juggle the large-scale cinematic battlefield events, and trying to figure out how any one of the player combats would affect the larger unfolding of the battle - they did.
From my perspective, I'd say it went "OK", although my players seemed to really enjoy the session.
I say "OK" because I"m used to a lot more precision - but it occurs to me that playing a little fast and loose with the number of enemies, and their positions, was probably more "true to life" - reflecting the chaos and confusion of a battle.
I think I want to experiment with this some more, but I need to learn to do this better.
So I'm wondering who out there uses Theater of the Mind in combat, and what are some helpful techniques and pointers for doing so, when you can't literally point to exact numbers and positions on the battlemat? Thanks :)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I use theater of the mind for smaller combats (like minion fights, or one beast in the forest) but I have a hard time keeping track of enemies and their HP if there are a lot of them. I like the idea of it as it keeps up the momentum of the situation without going "okay guys, I gotta draw the map". I tell my players a description of the environment and what enemies they can see, usually they are foes they've faced before.
A lot of it probably has to do with what your players like. I think that I've been most successful when there were mostly the same enemy type and easy to defeat. It's easier to tell my players than there are 20 goblins for them to one-shot than track them each individually. My players are very tactical and like to have as much information as possible, so they don't like combat to be too vague (which is why it's only really worked when I've had the same enemy type).
I'm actually trying to make theater of the mind easier for me and more enjoyable for my players because I don't like having to always pause to set up the combat map.
My group prefers theater of the mind, from time to time I give full blown descriptions but sometimes I just give them the immediate info they need for their turn.
For example one time there was a colossal battle between Dragonbron and Ibixian Goatmen and I would be like "Loki, it is your turn, battle rages all around as you see one dragonborn on his back fighting with a knife from a goatmen, no shortage of targets either way, what do you do?"
Or "Kron, enemy to the left 20 feet and another to the right 30 feet, what do you do?"
All depends on what is happening, how long the combat has been going and the scale of the fight. One time did a theater of the mind with a baby megladon circling the party as they treaded water, half of them damn near walked out because it felt so real they got freaked.
Doing some digging around in other places ( gasp, treason! ) I've found a couple of problem areas - and solutions - with using Theater of the Mind solely for combat
Note, the issues here might be too much for your style. I'm not arguing whether or not Theater of the Mind combat is good or bad. I think that's a personal choice for you and your group. Personally, I haven't decided. I'm just trying to figure out what would need to change in the game for it to work.
Description
It requires a heck of a lot of more description, and good description from the DM. Remember the adage "a picture is worth a 1,000 words"? That's right; use 1,000 more words ( not really, you'd put your players to sleep ) - because your players have to be totally clear on what the situation is, and how it looks. The players need to know they're fighting near the edge of cliff, not have it be a surprise halfway through combat.
It also requires some narrative "give and take", and maybe some impromptu mechanics.
DM: OK, the Gnoll archer is going to target the wizard, since he's out in the opening to cast that fireball.
Player: Um ... I know I'm pretty squishy, I wouldn't be out in the open, I would have ducked back into the treeline.
DM: Hmmm... good point, but you'd have had to pop out of cover to target the spell, and to cast it, as it has a somatic component. Give me a Stealth roll, and you can get 1/4 of cover for each 5 points you get.
It also requires some player-character trust. If they're going to run across the forest clearing, and they've already seen the pit, they're just not going to fall into it.
Range and Movement:
This one is tough for me ( I like precision ) but you have to let go of mathematically exact positioning and range, in favor of functional range and movement. Really, it doesn't matter to the Ranger if that Orc is 40 feet away, or 50 feet away, right? It just matters if the target is within short range, long range, or out of range, The Monk doesn't need to know that that the Ogre is 35 feet away, they need to know : can close the distance to attack this round? Can they close if they dash? What about if they use Step of the Wind? This is what I mean by "functional range and movement".
Envisioning and describing the combat theater well, should allow the DM to make reasonable calls on this, in the moment, with minimal Player arguments.
Lines of Sight & Areas of Effect
This one is tough - but I think it can be done. It may require some skill rolls. Although I think the description always trumps the mechanics. If the DM told you that you're standing at the top of the cliff of a narrow mountain passage, and the bad guys are at the bottom, you have line of sight, and you can get area effect, no matter what the mechanics might say. Mechanics only exist for narratively fuzzy cases.
For line-of-sight, essentially how well the Player is at maneuvering on the battlefield determines whether or not they can line up a clean shot. This might be Survival ( Tracking ) or Perception roll. DCs would be dependent on the battlefield conditions. Out on grassland, DC might be 5-10. In a forest, 10-15 in short range, 15-20 out in long range. Maybe the point spread determines the amount of cover the target enjoys; fail the DC by 2 points, and you can take the shot, but the target has 50% cover. Maybe the target is attempting to use cover, so suddenly it becomes a contested roll of Perception vs. Stealth, with modifiers for the terrain type.
Likewise, skill rolls might be used to see how many enemies you can catch in an area effect spell.
In both cases, maybe the DM will allow a bonus for reckless - giving the Player a bonus on their roll, but taking a chance of hitting friendlies if they miss ( or as well, in the case of areas of effect ).
Attacks of Opportunity & Flanking
This one is simple. Just assume that creatures will fight in the optimum fashion, to the limits of the terrain.
Your fighter is fighting in the open against 2 creatures? They'll be flanked.
Your fighter and Paladin are both attacking the Owlbear? They'll be flanking.
The Owlbear is in a narrow cave entrance, or the Paladin and Fighter are fighting back to back against multiple enemies? No flanking.
A creature breaks melee combat? Opportunity attack.
A creature runs by a group of creatures on the battlefield to get to a comrade? DM choice, but maybe involve the player, " Hmm... you could get to Thagor this turn, with your regular movement, but you'd have to run past the Roper, and take an attack-of-opportunity, or you can Dash and take a wide circle around it. You'd still get to him, but you wouldn't be able to attack this round - what do you do?"
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
One time did a theater of the mind with a baby megladon circling the party as they treaded water, half of them damn near walked out because it felt so real they got freaked.
Yep - that's makes total sense.
One of the benefits that I think ToM enjoys is immersion. It's not happening 3rd person to that little guy on that battlemat over there - it's being described as happening to you.
The other benefit that I hope one could squeeze out of it, is blurring the lines between combat, and non-combat, in the game. I think we get all modal: OK, this is the social/RP part of the game, and I'll act like this; OK, this is the combat part, and I'll act like this.
I'm not 100% convinces that it's easy to realize that goal, or whether the added overhead and uncertainty is worth it yet, but I'm trying to figure out all the implications.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've always used a primarily ToM approach. (I've played in campaigns that used miniatures and grids, but I've never used them as DM.) I say primarily ToM because it's always useful to supplement with a quick sketch to help the players (and me) keep up with a combat situation, and I've found I can do that in a matter of seconds as I'm describing the scene/scenario. Lately I've gone from doing that on a scrap piece of paper to using a dry erase board that I prop in a chair so everyone at the table can see it.
Like every other decision, ToM vs. grid modeling is a tradeoff. I prefer this method because it seems to keep things moving whereas setting up a grid and moving the pieces around seem to consume a lot more time than I want to spend "outside" the story. For me, it's much more efficient to describe the setting--everything significant the the PCs can see, hear, and feel in a few brief sentences, supplemented with a sketch as I talk for key locales and especially for combat scenarios with multiple foes. The tradeoff, of course, is precision. Without the battle grid, I can't be as precise about exactly where every creature in the scene is located in relation to each other, I can only approximate that and make DM decisions based on my own mental concept of those physical relationships. For a really complex locale, I will sometimes show my players as much of the map as their characters can see, but I try to avoid that because it really puts the brakes on the action.
What it probably comes down to is this: The way I approach the game is to try to ignore the fact that it's a game and treat it as collaborative story-telling as much as possible. The underlying framework of the game--the how it all works part--is always there, especially in combat situations, but the focus is on what's happing, who's doing what and how each particular "what" impacts the other characters in the story. From that perspective, grids and markers seem distracting. If I were more concerned with simulation, I would certainly favor the other approach since for accurate simulation I and my players would need the more precise data the battle grid provides.
From a practical standpoint, it works out fine. My players ask questions if they feel I've given a vague description, which is often my cue to get out the dry erase marker.
But you asked for tips about how to do it, and I'm not sure in all this ramble I've done that; honestly, I'm not sure I've ever actually thought about just how I do it. I think probably my best tip is to be both descriptive and economical. Give a clear description without information overload. Example: "When you enter the mouth of the dry gulch, you see that 60 feet ahead of you four goblins have fanned out across a cave opening, bows at the ready. The walls of the gulch are steep and rocky, and the gulch narrows toward the cave, whose opening is about 20 feet wide. The goblins see you. What do you do?" Without saying so, I've suggested that the goblins are about 5 feet apart. I haven't described the goblins beyond naming them--I'm just letting the players picture it for themselves. Broad strokes. If someone asks for more detail, I can provide it, but I'm going to pretty quickly say "The goblins are shooting at you" if the players dither. In this case, the goblins will probably fire a volley or two and run into the cave, depending on what the PCs decide to do, but from the PCs' perspective this is a potential battle in three dimensions since goblins could easily be hiding on the rocky walls themselves or above, not to mention inside the cave. I just let it happen in narrative mode, calling for initiative when the fighting starts and, when it gets complex, get out the dry erase as I'm describing to sketch it out in basic lines if that seems necessary to prevent confusion. In this case, that's likely since there are potentially numerous goblins in and around the cave. I don't know if this is helpful at all. Sorry it went on so long.
Anyway, the players keep coming back, so apparently it's working for us. And of course that's the main thing. Use whatever works for you and tweak the bits you find a nuisance until you find the right mix.
The more I dig into other peoples' experiences with ToM combat, the more I think that some sort of graphical representation to indicate precisely to the players what the setting and initial conditions are - is needed.
If I was doing something like this, I wouldn't grid it, and I might give each player a copy, printed on 8.5x11in paper, so-as to divorce the idea from it being a central battlemat.
It would save a lot of time, and take it all as narrative from that point onwards.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
There are a lot of very good points in the discussion and much of the suggestions I have are already mentioned above. I should add that during my 30+ years with roleplaying games, it has been pretty much 100% ToTM, both as a player and DM.
Sketch. For a tactical overview ahead of and during battle. As you yourself noted, showing something at the start of a fight is a good thing. I does not need to be detailed. Also, as battle commences, you don't have to redraw the map. Highlight the most relevant changes, if needed, like the boss moving.
Describe as needed. Give more details when asked for, otherwise stick to the most relevant parts.
Players can add stuff too. Within reason, open up for new details if the players want them. You can always add a challenge to have it. PC wants cover, introduce it but request passing a foe for opportunity attack or succeeding a roll.
Close enough is good enough. You lose details, but win speed. DM decides distance, radius etc. As a player, accept the verdict. As a DM, keep the story and challenge in mind and use it as support for a fun experience.
Do not let the rules stop you. This might be a very general suggestion for any RPG, but D&D's rules very much have minis in mind. If ToTM creates uncertainty about a rule, change it. During play, make a fast call. If needed, take a discussion after and let the rest of the group agree whether or not whatever is decided is the rule going forward.
Fun story first and foremost. Not as in giggles and comedy, but the whole group enjoying the story you are creating. Less details means you open up for a better story (sometimes). Instead of dashing but not getting all the way to the fight, you get there on your round, so that the player don't have to wait. Maybe the fireball's radius should have killed one PC that was low on HP, but if that means the player being out of the fight for ten minutes, let him or her continue to be part of it a while longer.
I do like your idea about interactive and negotiated details. I think we do that even with a battlemat when a player asks "hey, can I get enough cover here behind this mcguffin?", we just turn that up a bit with the player asking "hey, is there a mcguffin I can get some cover behind, anywhere?".
I'm already on the "DM changes the rule on the fly, discuss it later as a group" wagon - I think that's just a good general rule of thumb, and that's one of the points I bring up in all my Session 0. It does, however, raise the specter of how Theater of the Mind combat will not sit well with the Rules Lawyer type player or DM. Rules - and precise spatial battlemats - help remove ambiguity & inconsistency, and some people will not want to let go of that.
I'm kind of between those two camps myself. I can't say I've never bent the rules for the story, and allowed a player just a little more movement that they strictly had RAW because it forwarded the story - but generally I like my consistency ( I've found that good Players, and good DM, can springboard off of character failures as a means to advance the story just as well as a success ).
To that end, I think I'd crib/adapt a technique from one of Angry DM's articles, found here.
He seems to sketch out the combat area, not in a grid, but in moves: it's one move to the bridge, one more move across the bridge to the Gnolls - so that DM's battle "map" looks something like this:
That's not a battlegrid - and it comes back to my view of "functional distance". Maybe the Monk gets to move 3 jumps every 2 turns - but essentially everyone gets to move one jump each turn. One thing Angry added that I hadn't considered was the idea of a line/vertex here having different physical and travel values: that's really only 20 feet for the archers, but it's a shear cliff, so it's 40 feet of movement to traverse.
Laying that out as a super-simple, DM-only, practical "map" of the area would - I think - allow for consistency, while allowing the combat to otherwise flow ToM.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I exclusively use Theatre of the Mind. Because of the players I play with, I found that the Tyranny of the Grid would control the play field and slow everything down. Turns would become a slog as players counted squares to optimize their turns.
I also noticed that when combat started, regardless of who they were role-playing as, they would take their role-playing hats and put on their strategy hats. Suddenly the Barbarians of the party with 8 Int and Wis would mysteriously be strategic masterminds. Why? It was no longer a roleplaying game and was a strategy game.
Once I removed the grid then players were free to play how their characters would. Combat no longer became a strategy mini-game inside a roleplaying game and became an extension of the role-playing game itself.
The key to Theatre of the Mind is doing a quick recap between each turn to summarize and provide details for the player that is next.
You should also provide just enough details to give informed decision, but not too much to slog the game down. However, don't do any "gotchas". Give warnings if actions will have consequences, because players may not realize that due to there being no grid. For example, if movement might provoke, warn them about it. If a fireball would hit civilians, let them know, et cetera.
Also, give a heads up to players letting them know when they are "up next" so they can be prepared.
Speaking of that, because there is no reference grid. Players need to pay attention more. No zoning out looking at phones vegging until your turn and then scanning the grid. Players should ask questions to help make informed decisions. There is a change a Player's mindset when it comes to playing Theatre of the Mind.
I run combat on a grid, and I've done so for decades.
Last session though, it was odd for the major combat that occupied about 3/4 of the session, we just never set up the battle mat. I think it happened that way because the battlefield itself was very large and complex ( a large jungle prison camp compound, under military assault that was being conducted by someone other than the players ), and when it battle down the party was split across three different locations in the prison compound. It was a fun challenge for me as DM: 2 separate mini-combats, going on in the same shared setting, while trying to juggle the large-scale cinematic battlefield events, and trying to figure out how any one of the player combats would affect the larger unfolding of the battle - they did.
From my perspective, I'd say it went "OK", although my players seemed to really enjoy the session.
I say "OK" because I"m used to a lot more precision - but it occurs to me that playing a little fast and loose with the number of enemies, and their positions, was probably more "true to life" - reflecting the chaos and confusion of a battle.
I think I want to experiment with this some more, but I need to learn to do this better.
So I'm wondering who out there uses Theater of the Mind in combat, and what are some helpful techniques and pointers for doing so, when you can't literally point to exact numbers and positions on the battlemat? Thanks :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I use theater of the mind for smaller combats (like minion fights, or one beast in the forest) but I have a hard time keeping track of enemies and their HP if there are a lot of them. I like the idea of it as it keeps up the momentum of the situation without going "okay guys, I gotta draw the map". I tell my players a description of the environment and what enemies they can see, usually they are foes they've faced before.
A lot of it probably has to do with what your players like. I think that I've been most successful when there were mostly the same enemy type and easy to defeat. It's easier to tell my players than there are 20 goblins for them to one-shot than track them each individually. My players are very tactical and like to have as much information as possible, so they don't like combat to be too vague (which is why it's only really worked when I've had the same enemy type).
I'm actually trying to make theater of the mind easier for me and more enjoyable for my players because I don't like having to always pause to set up the combat map.
My group prefers theater of the mind, from time to time I give full blown descriptions but sometimes I just give them the immediate info they need for their turn.
For example one time there was a colossal battle between Dragonbron and Ibixian Goatmen and I would be like "Loki, it is your turn, battle rages all around as you see one dragonborn on his back fighting with a knife from a goatmen, no shortage of targets either way, what do you do?"
Or "Kron, enemy to the left 20 feet and another to the right 30 feet, what do you do?"
All depends on what is happening, how long the combat has been going and the scale of the fight. One time did a theater of the mind with a baby megladon circling the party as they treaded water, half of them damn near walked out because it felt so real they got freaked.
Thanks for the feedback :)
Doing some digging around in other places ( gasp, treason! ) I've found a couple of problem areas - and solutions - with using Theater of the Mind solely for combat
Note, the issues here might be too much for your style. I'm not arguing whether or not Theater of the Mind combat is good or bad. I think that's a personal choice for you and your group. Personally, I haven't decided. I'm just trying to figure out what would need to change in the game for it to work.
Description
It requires a heck of a lot of more description, and good description from the DM. Remember the adage "a picture is worth a 1,000 words"? That's right; use 1,000 more words ( not really, you'd put your players to sleep ) - because your players have to be totally clear on what the situation is, and how it looks. The players need to know they're fighting near the edge of cliff, not have it be a surprise halfway through combat.
It also requires some narrative "give and take", and maybe some impromptu mechanics.
DM: OK, the Gnoll archer is going to target the wizard, since he's out in the opening to cast that fireball.
Player: Um ... I know I'm pretty squishy, I wouldn't be out in the open, I would have ducked back into the treeline.
DM: Hmmm... good point, but you'd have had to pop out of cover to target the spell, and to cast it, as it has a somatic component. Give me a Stealth roll, and you can get 1/4 of cover for each 5 points you get.
It also requires some player-character trust. If they're going to run across the forest clearing, and they've already seen the pit, they're just not going to fall into it.
Range and Movement:
This one is tough for me ( I like precision ) but you have to let go of mathematically exact positioning and range, in favor of functional range and movement. Really, it doesn't matter to the Ranger if that Orc is 40 feet away, or 50 feet away, right? It just matters if the target is within short range, long range, or out of range, The Monk doesn't need to know that that the Ogre is 35 feet away, they need to know : can close the distance to attack this round? Can they close if they dash? What about if they use Step of the Wind? This is what I mean by "functional range and movement".
Envisioning and describing the combat theater well, should allow the DM to make reasonable calls on this, in the moment, with minimal Player arguments.
Lines of Sight & Areas of Effect
This one is tough - but I think it can be done. It may require some skill rolls. Although I think the description always trumps the mechanics. If the DM told you that you're standing at the top of the cliff of a narrow mountain passage, and the bad guys are at the bottom, you have line of sight, and you can get area effect, no matter what the mechanics might say. Mechanics only exist for narratively fuzzy cases.
For line-of-sight, essentially how well the Player is at maneuvering on the battlefield determines whether or not they can line up a clean shot. This might be Survival ( Tracking ) or Perception roll. DCs would be dependent on the battlefield conditions. Out on grassland, DC might be 5-10. In a forest, 10-15 in short range, 15-20 out in long range. Maybe the point spread determines the amount of cover the target enjoys; fail the DC by 2 points, and you can take the shot, but the target has 50% cover. Maybe the target is attempting to use cover, so suddenly it becomes a contested roll of Perception vs. Stealth, with modifiers for the terrain type.
Likewise, skill rolls might be used to see how many enemies you can catch in an area effect spell.
In both cases, maybe the DM will allow a bonus for reckless - giving the Player a bonus on their roll, but taking a chance of hitting friendlies if they miss ( or as well, in the case of areas of effect ).
Attacks of Opportunity & Flanking
This one is simple. Just assume that creatures will fight in the optimum fashion, to the limits of the terrain.
Your fighter is fighting in the open against 2 creatures? They'll be flanked.
Your fighter and Paladin are both attacking the Owlbear? They'll be flanking.
The Owlbear is in a narrow cave entrance, or the Paladin and Fighter are fighting back to back against multiple enemies? No flanking.
A creature breaks melee combat? Opportunity attack.
A creature runs by a group of creatures on the battlefield to get to a comrade? DM choice, but maybe involve the player, " Hmm... you could get to Thagor this turn, with your regular movement, but you'd have to run past the Roper, and take an attack-of-opportunity, or you can Dash and take a wide circle around it. You'd still get to him, but you wouldn't be able to attack this round - what do you do?"
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Yep - that's makes total sense.
One of the benefits that I think ToM enjoys is immersion. It's not happening 3rd person to that little guy on that battlemat over there - it's being described as happening to you.
The other benefit that I hope one could squeeze out of it, is blurring the lines between combat, and non-combat, in the game. I think we get all modal: OK, this is the social/RP part of the game, and I'll act like this; OK, this is the combat part, and I'll act like this.
I'm not 100% convinces that it's easy to realize that goal, or whether the added overhead and uncertainty is worth it yet, but I'm trying to figure out all the implications.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've always used a primarily ToM approach. (I've played in campaigns that used miniatures and grids, but I've never used them as DM.) I say primarily ToM because it's always useful to supplement with a quick sketch to help the players (and me) keep up with a combat situation, and I've found I can do that in a matter of seconds as I'm describing the scene/scenario. Lately I've gone from doing that on a scrap piece of paper to using a dry erase board that I prop in a chair so everyone at the table can see it.
Like every other decision, ToM vs. grid modeling is a tradeoff. I prefer this method because it seems to keep things moving whereas setting up a grid and moving the pieces around seem to consume a lot more time than I want to spend "outside" the story. For me, it's much more efficient to describe the setting--everything significant the the PCs can see, hear, and feel in a few brief sentences, supplemented with a sketch as I talk for key locales and especially for combat scenarios with multiple foes. The tradeoff, of course, is precision. Without the battle grid, I can't be as precise about exactly where every creature in the scene is located in relation to each other, I can only approximate that and make DM decisions based on my own mental concept of those physical relationships. For a really complex locale, I will sometimes show my players as much of the map as their characters can see, but I try to avoid that because it really puts the brakes on the action.
What it probably comes down to is this: The way I approach the game is to try to ignore the fact that it's a game and treat it as collaborative story-telling as much as possible. The underlying framework of the game--the how it all works part--is always there, especially in combat situations, but the focus is on what's happing, who's doing what and how each particular "what" impacts the other characters in the story. From that perspective, grids and markers seem distracting. If I were more concerned with simulation, I would certainly favor the other approach since for accurate simulation I and my players would need the more precise data the battle grid provides.
From a practical standpoint, it works out fine. My players ask questions if they feel I've given a vague description, which is often my cue to get out the dry erase marker.
But you asked for tips about how to do it, and I'm not sure in all this ramble I've done that; honestly, I'm not sure I've ever actually thought about just how I do it. I think probably my best tip is to be both descriptive and economical. Give a clear description without information overload. Example: "When you enter the mouth of the dry gulch, you see that 60 feet ahead of you four goblins have fanned out across a cave opening, bows at the ready. The walls of the gulch are steep and rocky, and the gulch narrows toward the cave, whose opening is about 20 feet wide. The goblins see you. What do you do?" Without saying so, I've suggested that the goblins are about 5 feet apart. I haven't described the goblins beyond naming them--I'm just letting the players picture it for themselves. Broad strokes. If someone asks for more detail, I can provide it, but I'm going to pretty quickly say "The goblins are shooting at you" if the players dither. In this case, the goblins will probably fire a volley or two and run into the cave, depending on what the PCs decide to do, but from the PCs' perspective this is a potential battle in three dimensions since goblins could easily be hiding on the rocky walls themselves or above, not to mention inside the cave. I just let it happen in narrative mode, calling for initiative when the fighting starts and, when it gets complex, get out the dry erase as I'm describing to sketch it out in basic lines if that seems necessary to prevent confusion. In this case, that's likely since there are potentially numerous goblins in and around the cave. I don't know if this is helpful at all. Sorry it went on so long.
Anyway, the players keep coming back, so apparently it's working for us. And of course that's the main thing. Use whatever works for you and tweak the bits you find a nuisance until you find the right mix.
Good luck.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
The more I dig into other peoples' experiences with ToM combat, the more I think that some sort of graphical representation to indicate precisely to the players what the setting and initial conditions are - is needed.
That doesn't need to be a battle mat grid, just a map or drawing which lays out the setting. Something like this: https://rpgcharacters.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/kins-river-cave-production.jpg
If I was doing something like this, I wouldn't grid it, and I might give each player a copy, printed on 8.5x11in paper, so-as to divorce the idea from it being a central battlemat.
It would save a lot of time, and take it all as narrative from that point onwards.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
There are a lot of very good points in the discussion and much of the suggestions I have are already mentioned above. I should add that during my 30+ years with roleplaying games, it has been pretty much 100% ToTM, both as a player and DM.
Good points Eggnot.
I do like your idea about interactive and negotiated details. I think we do that even with a battlemat when a player asks "hey, can I get enough cover here behind this mcguffin?", we just turn that up a bit with the player asking "hey, is there a mcguffin I can get some cover behind, anywhere?".
I'm already on the "DM changes the rule on the fly, discuss it later as a group" wagon - I think that's just a good general rule of thumb, and that's one of the points I bring up in all my Session 0. It does, however, raise the specter of how Theater of the Mind combat will not sit well with the Rules Lawyer type player or DM. Rules - and precise spatial battlemats - help remove ambiguity & inconsistency, and some people will not want to let go of that.
I'm kind of between those two camps myself. I can't say I've never bent the rules for the story, and allowed a player just a little more movement that they strictly had RAW because it forwarded the story - but generally I like my consistency ( I've found that good Players, and good DM, can springboard off of character failures as a means to advance the story just as well as a success ).
To that end, I think I'd crib/adapt a technique from one of Angry DM's articles, found here.
He seems to sketch out the combat area, not in a grid, but in moves: it's one move to the bridge, one more move across the bridge to the Gnolls - so that DM's battle "map" looks something like this:
That's not a battlegrid - and it comes back to my view of "functional distance". Maybe the Monk gets to move 3 jumps every 2 turns - but essentially everyone gets to move one jump each turn. One thing Angry added that I hadn't considered was the idea of a line/vertex here having different physical and travel values: that's really only 20 feet for the archers, but it's a shear cliff, so it's 40 feet of movement to traverse.
Laying that out as a super-simple, DM-only, practical "map" of the area would - I think - allow for consistency, while allowing the combat to otherwise flow ToM.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I exclusively use Theatre of the Mind. Because of the players I play with, I found that the Tyranny of the Grid would control the play field and slow everything down. Turns would become a slog as players counted squares to optimize their turns.
I also noticed that when combat started, regardless of who they were role-playing as, they would take their role-playing hats and put on their strategy hats. Suddenly the Barbarians of the party with 8 Int and Wis would mysteriously be strategic masterminds. Why? It was no longer a roleplaying game and was a strategy game.
Once I removed the grid then players were free to play how their characters would. Combat no longer became a strategy mini-game inside a roleplaying game and became an extension of the role-playing game itself.
The key to Theatre of the Mind is doing a quick recap between each turn to summarize and provide details for the player that is next.
You should also provide just enough details to give informed decision, but not too much to slog the game down. However, don't do any "gotchas". Give warnings if actions will have consequences, because players may not realize that due to there being no grid. For example, if movement might provoke, warn them about it. If a fireball would hit civilians, let them know, et cetera.
Also, give a heads up to players letting them know when they are "up next" so they can be prepared.
Speaking of that, because there is no reference grid. Players need to pay attention more. No zoning out looking at phones vegging until your turn and then scanning the grid. Players should ask questions to help make informed decisions. There is a change a Player's mindset when it comes to playing Theatre of the Mind.
Mike Shea's guide to theater of the mind combat might be useful here :http://slyflourish.com/guide_to_narrative_combat.html
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)