Quote from: Skarg;1013329I don't mention it to annoy you, but to make a point about the difference between having a grid and good rules for using it, or not.

If you do have a mapped combat system, the situation itself as it develops through an encounter, and the moves the combatants make, determine what is possible to do each turn, and with what modifiers.

If you don't, then those same things are mostly or all determined by the GM. A GM with theatrical motivations such as you have described in the past, may well prefer Theater of the Mind because they can easily sway outcomes and have situations happen. If there is a map and the positions of everything are laid out and played out, then more concrete and visible systems determine what does or doesn't happen.

And Estar, I appreciate your points, but I think the rules do influence how much of an effect this has. TFT seems like a great example of where the map situation can often be decisive and more important in determining who lives or dies, than the stats and die rolls, because there are few strength points between life and death, relatively high damage amounts and effects of injury, little practical ability to defend, and many PCs (especially at first) don't even wear any armor, so the difference between life and death is very often about how many foes you face each turn, or who has a good clear shot at whom, or whether someone gets charge-attacked by a polearm, or attacked from the side or rear, or tackled, all of which is dependent on the map situation and moves - if the GM has to come up with all of that, it's very different than if the map/rules are used. So TFT seems like an example of a game where the rules make mapped play more crucial than others (even than GURPS, where at least you have active defenses, are more likely to have armor, and dropping to 0 doesn't necessarily mean you're dead). Going further, a game where PCs have large amounts of hit points, aren't often hit by mooks no matter how many attack them, there are limits on how many can attack them per turn, and there are no effects of injury until you drop to 0, a map would seem to me less crucial because of those rules.

Ok, snark retracted... But no, my style of GMing or perceived style of GMing has nothing to do with it. I do spend a lot of time prepping. Having to come up with detailed schematics of every possible location for an encounter is just a time killer. I prefer to play without them but some systems make it very difficult.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1013349Really? You play it just the way that Gronan, estar, and I have said.  Or if you don't like what we are saying, then there are videos floating around of Chris Pramas (who wrote the game) running Fantasy Age for Will Wheaton and his nerdy crew - and guess what? He plays exactly as we described and doesn't use maps or miniatures. It's like this: GM describes the tactical situation, players ask questions, GM elaborates where needed, players make decisions, GM adjudicates the rules.  Now rinse and repeat.  I'm not trying to be snarky, but this rpg 101, and I can't imagine what rules could prevent this.

Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.

Maybe the players could say something like,"we spread out a bit so he can't get any two of us in a fireball."

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.

"Where are you aiming it?"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013318OD&D.

"Is there something I can take cover behind?"
* die roll * "Yes."

"Can I get a shot at the biggest ogre?"
* die roll * "Not where you are."
"Okay, I move to where I get a shot."

"Is the orc leader in range of a thrown spear?"
* die roll * "Yes."

Honest to Crom, it works great.

As long as there is a high degree of trust in the group, it works great.  It is absolutely critical that the players know that the NPCs might screw them, but the GM never will.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.

This is part of what that saving throw for half damage is about. Also have you actually mapped out the area of effect of a fireball on the tabletop? It's huge.

If trying to figure out who is an is not hit by a fireball is a "common issue" in your games, then you may need a map and tokens of some sort. I would also recomend playing it old school, no grid, get out a ruler and measure the distances.

As for the player placing himself just where he wanted to be on the map so as to avoid the spell, this is unrealistic. If we had that ability in real life there would never be automobile collisions or any other accidents resulting from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one would choose to place themselves there on the map. Also real melees are never as static as map&token games. I don't care how finely you break up the game turns, they are still static compared to reality. Grids just make it worse. There is no "half space" on a grid. You are in the space or you are out of it.

I have a hard time coming up with RPGs that actually require maps and tokens. Even Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok which plays out combat as a hex grid based tactical wargame with lots of range counting and area of effect powers includes rules for playing mapless theatre of the mind.  I have played it that way for a very tactical encounter and we had no problems at all.

You could always look at The One Ring no combat grids or maps. Combatants choose a stance, forward, defensive, rearward, etc. This determines their relationship to teh enemy and the combat.
What specifc games are giving you problems with getting away from maps, grids, and tokens?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013356Ok, snark retracted... But no, my style of GMing or perceived style of GMing has nothing to do with it. I do spend a lot of time prepping. Having to come up with detailed schematics of every possible location for an encounter is just a time killer. I prefer to play without them but some systems make it very difficult.

In all seriousness, if a given system does not mesh well with your GMing style, don't run it.  There are plenty of games I don't play or run because I don't like the way the mechanics work.  Why make it harder on yourself?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.

You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?

Thanks in advance.

Dungeon World, Feng Shui 2, Tunnels and Trolls, Fate and Classic Traveller are what I would recommend:). Yes, FS2 and CT aren't fantasy, but they're written broadly enough that you can play anything with them, and it would make next to no difference mechanically.

Quote from: estar;1013275I concur with Mad Professor all RPGs can be played theater of the mind.

Yep. I rarely use a battle-mat. When I do - it's almost *always* establish locations for ambushing etc. and almost always for ranged concerns like someone in t he group is a sniper or something.

99% of the time it's Melon Theater.

Precis Intermedia has a game called Ancient Odyssey's: Treasure Awaits! that has four distances.  Going by memory here, they are Close, Far, Sneaking and The Enemy.

I've come around to using minis for when I run games- simply because my melon is weak in theater of melon.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013370As long as there is a high degree of trust in the group, it works great.  It is absolutely critical that the players know that the NPCs might screw them, but the GM never will.

That should always be the case. Apparently it isn't with some folks, but I still find that hard to grasp.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.

You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?

Thanks in advance.

I've actually played systems that have all sorts of tactical facing like modifiers, movement points, etc. that seem to require a map, and played them without a map just fine.  You just envision it and need to have cool player's who are about honesty and fairness and not every little advantage.

I usually use just a piece of paper (nor grid) to give a rough idea of layout when it gets complicated (for us that is like a PC party with a dozen all told and 2-3 dozen opponents).

I both love and hate tactical maps and miniatures.  I love the look and feel, hate the set up / interruption; I love how they keep you honest, as to how many creature can really fit in that 20x20 room.   But I got lots of room and dwarven forge so not so bad.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.

I pretty much have and do it the way Gronan describes when have no map, but have you considered a hybrid approach.  This really came out of our love of miniatures that we just had to put on the table.  We first started with just marching order, no grid or anything, but we all got the scale from relative placement.  This evolved to relative placement in a "room" we didn't draw the room and may use a dice to represent something.

Basically it gives you spacing between characters.

Now on robbing of ability to be where one wants....as we use rules that don't track or need exact position, and are all pretty easy going, we'd roll to see if one is outside the radius or not if it is a question.  If playing OD&D may be as simple as giving a situational modifier to your save, and special dispensation to avoid all damage.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1013409That should always be the case. Apparently it isn't with some folks, but I still find that hard to grasp.

Oh, it's required for any good game.  But if you don't have it, you can still get a passable, fun game--at least often enough to make it worth it to smooth out the rough spots.  Plus, it takes some time to build up trust in a new group.   With new players, I'll still often play without a map, but if they show any confusion, I'll set up something primitive to make sure they are following--if only a few dice as markers on the table, and showing rough positioning.  It's better then to not have things like facing that draw too much on that developing trust.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013424Oh, it's required for any good game.  But if you don't have it, you can still get a passable, fun game--at least often enough to make it worth it to smooth out the rough spots.  Plus, it takes some time to build up trust in a new group.   With new players, I'll still often play without a map, but if they show any confusion, I'll set up something primitive to make sure they are following--if only a few dice as markers on the table, and showing rough positioning.  It's better then to not have things like facing that draw too much on that developing trust.

I sometimes throw some dice, a soda can, a notebook, a pencil or whatever is at hand on the table in a rough approximation of relative positions to help players visualize a complex tactical situation (or sometimes I'll sketch a 1 minute map) - but I won't waste much time on it, or bother moving markers on the "map."  It is just an expedient of communication where a quick visual of spatial relationships is quicker and less confusing than words.