Take Live Action Role Playing (LARP) for instance – Vampire. This is a fairly mechanics-lite system that certainly doesn’t use a grid. Challenges are resolved with rock/paper/scissors, and movement is calculated by physical steps. By and large, the activity is a story that is largely propelled through a large amount of social challenges, and the setting generally reflects this (often set within some kind of vampire “gathering”). Personally, I didn’t care for it much, but that’s me. It was largely because I prefer to engage an external storyline that is directed by a gamemaster, rather than seed a room full of subplots and conflicting personal motivations (like a soap opera). Gridless works ok in delivering what LARP promises.

On the other hand, I recall playing D&D in the early days before we used grids, and I found that the tactical complexity suffered in comparison with today’s versions. Combat was largely reduced to “I attack the orc!”, and everything else was ruled by GM fiat. Players could suggest and negotiate, but the GM decided what was in bounds and what was out. Thus, while you would think *roleplaying* would be enhanced with loosey goosey tactical game rules, it seemed to have the opposite effect. The more loose the game structure in a challenge scenario, the more it required GM arbitration or interpretation, and thus deprotagonized players while simultaneously reducing the strategic complexity of the activity.

So, I’d say it really depends on the nature of the activity. If you are going to have a game as part of the role playing experience, then it doesn’t benefit anyone to remove the structures of the game that are in place. If, on the other hand, the challenges are intended as plot propellant – in deciding in a very loose fashion what will happen next from a story POV, with less emphasis on spatial tactical elements, then there is little need for a grid. Enjoy your LARP.

What I mean is that some gamse are strong in the tactical department. A lot of your thinking and character-creation goes into how you will use your abilities during a tactical physical combat. That’s what the game does well and that’s what you should expect.

Other games are strong on narrative and immersive roleplaying. Nailing things down to a specific grid-map inhibits this because rules conversations and pausing to choose a maneuver that fits the situation slow down action and narration. Instead you have some kind of negotiated narrative control system where you know who is supposed to be describing what is going on when, or what a character does and what the results are.

They’re different kinds of games. Its like asking “does having a Monopoly board inhibit Scrabble play?” Yes, yes it does, because you’re talking about two different kinds of games with two different agendas.

You can also have hybrids, where sometimes you are into the roleplaying, and sometimes you break out the battle mat and get down to counting squares and throwing combat maneuvers at each other. I think that in both cases, you can just focus on what it is you’re doing at the time, and make that as fun as possible.

On the other hand, I’ve played more games where not using one enhanced roleplaying, and I do tend to look at games with battlemats differently. Battlemats make me focus on tactical decisions, and that tends to bleed into the rest of the playing experience for me.

As a GM, I use the absence of a formal battlemat as a signpost to signal that I’m more interested in the roleplaying aspects of the game than the nitty-gritty tactical stuff.

Great question!

your orignal proposition included this line,
“There are also a number of charts detailing initiative, special combat moves, and injuries.”

So my natural response is that this particular rule system is ‘combat heavy’, and therefor not built for intensive role play.
So asking if it a system designed for for a combat-heavy, socialskill-weak game would inhibit roleplay is like asking me if a dumptruck would suffer any drawbacks in a dragrace. The answer to both questions is,
“Of course.”

I am sorry if this sounds heretical or blunt (or cruel). But running a roleplaying-heavy game with a system that is 80-90% combat situation-specific can be an interesting change of pace once in a while, but it is by definition using the wrong tool for the job.

Filtering imaginative play through a mesh of constrictive mechanics is about as much fun as a hot poker in the eye.

Honestly, I think the biggest single influence upon the shift from story engagement to combat mechanics in the change from AD&D 2.0 to DnD 3.x was the elimination of the declaration phase at the beginning of the combat round! In a story telling game this is a must – players have to have the pause to “get their stories straight” – too many times I’ve seen someone (X) with a later initiative get messed up by someone acting ahead of them in some manner (#) which they *never would have done had they realized that X was in the process of doing Y* – and the character # would in fact *have known that* because it would have been visibly obvious to them. One of the most common examples is the “tank” charging forward only to take an arrow in the back from the slower archer whom he would have seen preparing to shoot and moved accordingly. Players need to be clear with each other about what all the characters would in fact be aware of at that particular moment in order to be able to play the characters accordingly. (and okay, sometimes the tank’s player says, “Yeah, I know, but # really is that dumb and would have charged ahead without thinking anyway,” then tenses up and crosses fingers while X resolves the subsequent missile attack. . .)

Anyway – in the initial context, the 3D display then facilitates the declaration phase significantly and players can coordinate their characters’ actions just as effectively and realistically as their opponents (who, all being played by the same person, always inherently have and properly act upon whatever information they should about what their cohorts are doing,) with the display obviating the need to verbally describe a lot of the information otherwise taking the time to speak during the declaration phase.

And, I must admit, I like playing with the toys.

____
In accordance with Prophecy,

Have Fun, Play Well,
Amergin O’Kai

I’ve been pleasantly surprised many times. Usually by a crunchy system when good roleplayers make it live and breathe. It can be anything, and people will find a way to get good dialogue in. Similarly, I’ve noticed that dialogue is stilted in our PTA games, despite the very simple rules and uniform system. That’s probably because we’re thinking “big picture” too much… but that’s what’s encouraged by the rules text.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The quality of any game depends on the people at the table.

Telas,

I also wholeheartedly agree with you. This is not a discussion as to what is “better,” only about expectations as to how an RPG will play.

I’d love to hear anecdotes about expectations reversed. One of my best examples is Feng Shui. This game is designed to be played in comfy chairs with streamlined character sheets (heck, you don’t even design the character, you just personalize a pregen), and yet the fight scenes were some of the most colorful and intense as I’ve ever played.

It’s a good question, I just didn’t feel that was the question I had left in my mind after the article. The battle grid inhibiting role play has come up in my home games a couple times, so I just wanted to ensure the question was approached in a fair manner.

It’s an important question to ask. I think the answer really depends on the players and the game master though, so it’s hard to make a blanket statement based solely on the use of a grid.

On the other hand, the comfy chair would be tantalizing spare. “I wonder what’s up tonight?” There’s a sense of mystery in the air.

Sanctaira: I’m sorry “comfy chair” upset you. I was envisioning my own living room. I currently run three campaigns: One is D&D 3.5, with full-on battlemats and minis, one is Victoriana 2e, which is mechanics-heavy but battlematless, and one is a WitchCraft game using the M&M mechanics, which is battlematless and actually my lightest of the bunch, rules-wise. All three have ongoing storylines, and for D&D and Victoriana, the adventures are commercial (or pre-commercial). D&D is certainly the most “combat heavy,” but I’ve run combats (without a map) for Victoriana that lasted just as long. I’ve also run D&D sessions with the battlemap in front of me that centered more on investigating a mystery than combat (to build on what Irda Ranger said).

My “hot button” questions are more about expectations. When you walk in and see a battlemat, do you have different expectations than if there isn’t one? Does the game end up playing like you expected, or were you surprised?