There’s been some talk lately about the infamous “GRID” in rpg’s. It’s come up in conversations about DnDNext, and whether or not people prefer to play with it or would rather go the “theatre of the mind route”. I also heard Will Wheaton on the latest Jennisodes podcast refer to 4e as basically a “board game” and he stated that he had played Dragon Age gridless. So I think grids are a little bit of a topic lately.
It’s no secret that the WOTC playtests for DNDNext are being played with a theatre of the mind assumption, leaving the option open to play with minis and a grid if you want. This is the assumption made in Dragon Age, and it works well for us. But I’ve found something pretty interesting is going on at my table, and I wonder how many other folks experience the same thing. I think that my group *likes* the idea of a game not needing minis (the main reason for dropping 4e was the length of encounters due to the tactical combat), but in practice prefers the minis and grid (even if just as a reference).
When we played 2e many moons ago, we played with a grid, and while positioning and movement wern’t really all that important to us, it helped us visualize the scene. We do the same with DA, terrain and movment aren’t to strict at my table, and the minis serve as a reference. So I’m finding that when I try to run a gridless combat, most people would prefer to see minis at the table. This is surprising to me, because for as much as we may have wanted to drop the 4e baggage, some things just work better. It’s an interesting thought. In fact, I think the only game we may play without really needing any minis is the Star Wars d6 game.
So yeah, grids. I find my recent experience interesting. Where do you stand, and why?
On DNDNext
I’m not going to talk much about DndNext (use your imaginations), but I will say this. I’m seeing some 4e fans feeling burnt by the talk coming out of official columns, public playtests and nda-breaking writers regarding the game. All I can say is relax. First, you are experiencing what 3e fans felt when 4e was announced 5 years ago. Now it’s y(our) turn. Such are the breaks. Also, the game is nowhere near finished. it’s unfair to judge a game based on snippets of information and marketing speak.
I personally have stuff to say about the game, and when the time comes, I will, trust me. But for now, I urge you to wait for the public playtest, where you’ll have your chance to help shape the game. Everything else right now is noise.
On a last note, I know I’ve been slacking here on the blogging front, but life’s kicking my ass. 🙂
If you would like to support NewbieDM.com, perhaps you’d consider visiting Amazon.com for your next rpg related purchase. Check out the following products:
World of Greyhawk AD&D Boxed Set
www. Newbie DM .com 
Andrew Asplund (@profounddark)
April 18, 2012
It’s funny. When a friend and I introduced a few friends to D&D (4E), we used the description that it was like a fusion between the story-time fun of a role-playing game with the tactical fun of a board game. That’s how we got people through the door. So, to hear people use the descriptor that it’s like a board game in a negative sense feels backwards to me.
My AD&D2 experience involved a lot of arguing over what was going on in combat. We didn’t use minis or maps. Then again, we were also 12 years old. In general, for something where positioning is important (that is, combat), I can’t imagine ever going back to the confusion of “Theater of the Mind.” If combat is something important enough to have sophisticated rules, get the right kind of sophistication. If it isn’t that important, resolve it in a less complicated way (through some good story-telling and a few simple die rolls).
pedr
April 18, 2012
I wonder if the sensible distinction is between games/mechanics which require accurate positioning and those where the rules allow things to be a bit more ‘fuzzy’. Games like FATE, WFRP 3e, and The One Ring seem to have rules which explicitly support knowing what’s important about positioning – am I near someone? Am I close to the explosive thing? … but don’t require that anyone knows precisely where each character is to the nearest 5 foot at all times.
The few times I’ve tried to play a d20 game without a grid I’ve been frustrated by whether I’m in range for a spell, or risk an opportunity attack, or whatnot, and that isn’t much fun, however much I’d like to be able to play without the focus on the grid.
Bob
April 18, 2012
Maps as an option are great but when required (feats/skills/class abilities) it becomes a problem. AoO’s, sliding, shifting (specific amounts) directions. You have to have a grid to figure it all out specially when players have said abilities.
We’ve went back to AD&D and yeah we use maps for the big/complex fights but mostly just so people have a better visual of the situation, not because Fighter Joe Bob needs to see how far he is from Lich Master o’Doom to slide/shift/AoO or whatever the feat/skill/ability requirements are.
Once the maps are layed out we generally don’t even touch them again. We don’t need to keep track of specifically where players or monsters are because we don’t need to worry about all the AoOs or similar feats.
It’s how we like it… your mileage may vary.
froth
April 18, 2012
always used a grid and minis since 1e
Jim Partin
April 18, 2012
My father before me used grid paper and chits. I use vinyl/laminated/computer grids and fancy/electronic dice. My little girl uses grids and bacon knows what in the future…
TotM is not my cup of tea for combat, plain and simple. Skill challenges, sure. The occasional rogue killing of a lone guard, sure. roleplaying, of course. But when the swords come out, the maps go down.
My biggest problem with dndnext is not the grids per se, but the return to what seems like dnd 3.95. I never liked vancian magic, but I feel it has it’s it’s place as a hybrid system with 4e powers. Going back to 3.x and earlier style vancian is a huge turn off for me. Throw in the horribad 3.x multiclassing, a return of weapon damage types, and it just feels like things are going backwards.
3.x Multiclassing was beyond broken and made ridiculous characters. I liked 3.x a lot, esp since it lifted race/class restrictions, but over time the classing system became absurd. I really like 4e’s concept of your class being who you are at heart and always advancing in that class.
I was glad when weapon damage types where gone, as well as rogues not being able to sneak attack certain types of creatures. If I notice a spinal disc on a skeleton is cracked and flimsy, I should be able to strike it vigorously. Same with an exposed tendon on a zombie. Slashing, bludgeoning, piercing, no thanks. It’s bad enough when my hits do less damage on a swarm or incorporeal, I don’t want to worry about carrying a club, which I may suck at, for dealing with skeletons.
Lack of skill challenges. Skill challenges were, imo, a great advancement that was poorly described how to roleplay and poorly implemented by DMs and players, esp at LFR games where time constraints limited good interaction with what should be a transparent system.
In fact, I’ll go on to say that LFR nearly killed 4e for me. I came to loathe the munchkins and item grinders. Thankfully, Encounters re-invigorated my desire to play and introduced me to my current group of players.
I may not have played dndnext yet, but everything I read from wotc sources gives the impression of going backwards just to combat paizo’s grasp on 3.x and appease a fan base that already thinks wotc only cares about money after so many 3.x books, then 4e, and now 5e.
alphastream
April 18, 2012
Good analysis! I think a lot of the anti-grid is from it being a dominant factor – it drove encounter design and the experience itself. While that had many positives, it also had negatives. The negatives were especially salient in early 4E efforts (and late 3E ones too… check out some 3E published adventures). It isn’t that we don’t love the grid – most of us do – but we want a balanced approach with plenty of space for flexibility around the intersection between story and characters.
spindlethin
April 23, 2012
The dresden RPG does a pretty good job of walking the line on this, as it has zones (about the size of one room) marked out. Essentially enough to know if you are in or out of melee combat.
dbro36
July 6, 2012
Grids, I don’t like them. I think positioning is important for game mechanic reasons, but I don’t think it needs to be grids. I designed an RPG that uses positioning, but goes for the “skirmish” approach, that is, free and open movement. And as far as “in or out of range” goes, I usually play in favour of the players, not the enemies. Perhaps I should put that in the core book as well… I mean, after all, it’s a game that is supposed to be enjoyed, and telling your friend after a lengthy discussion that the orc is just 3 nano-mm short of being in range to blast him to crap is, well… not fun.
Realmwright
October 4, 2012
I’m coming at this a bit late, but I just found it. I’m not a gamer, “just” a worldbuilder and mapper, so feel free to toss my 2 cents. But I say, grid for combat, dungeons, anything indoors. No grid for large scale maps and traveling. I like to think of the world as wide open where the characters aren’t plodding through a hex map – in fact, I have this mental cartoon of an elf tripping over a hex line and clanging his way-too-pretty face on the dwarf’s helmet. If your characters suddenly get into an encounter with a beastie on the road, in the woods, crossing the mountains, etc. keep a battlefield map and a couple minis handy to position them for combat. That’s my take. Take it or leave it.