Let’s get right into one of the greatest arguments in TTRPGs. This argument is on par with the editor war or console war for having staunch advocates on both sides while everyone secretly agrees that there is no correct answer. The Daggerheart playtest rules explicitly allow for either maps and minis or theater of the mind.
Optional: Maps and Miniatures
Using maps and miniatures to represent the scenarios the players are facing, especially during battle, can help to illustrate the scene that is before them, rather than relying solely on the theater of the mind. When drawing or building a map scale, distance, and details are not always going to be perfectly accurate, and that’s okay. The maps and the miniatures should never limit your imagination, only provide extra spatial context so that everyone can picture the scene clearly.
I believe that the designers intend on supporting whatever you as a GM need to do to run your best game.
That being said, I want to pick this apart. I’m not trying to second-guess what the designers said, but perhaps we can better understand how Daggerheart is different from other systems and what sort of game that leads us to.
What are the classic arguments?
Theater of the mind versus maps and minis has been argued to death.
which means it really comes down to personal preference, but to make sure we’re on the same page, let’s cover the major arguments.
Reasons why you might prefer theater of the mind, where everything is imagined and discussed:
- More flexibility to handle different situations as they arise
- More “cinematic” play
Reasons why you might prefer battlemaps:
- Precision in measuring distances
- Clarity with a shared reference
How does distance work in Daggerheart?
As of the open beta 1.5 rules, Daggerheart defines six ranges:
- Melee
- Very close
- Close
- Far
- Very Far
- Out of Range
These ranges are supported by a few details, including:
- Description
- Distance in feet
- Distance approximated by real-world items
The last of those is actually the most clever addition, in my opinion. I certainly have forgotten my ruler and tried to approximate the Pythagorean theorem to measure a diagonal.
Distance in feet is, in my mind, by far the least interesting. In fact, I think it is a concession to crunchier, 5e-style grid-based combat that isn’t really necessary. Despite the clear influences of grids in Daggerheart’s design, I think Daggerheart probably works best with maps without grids.
The hallway fight
To emphasize the flexibility in the range system, I want to cut over to the most iconic scene in the Netflix Daredevil show: a long take hallway fight scene.
I have often wondered how I might do something like that in a TTRPG. For many reasons, I haven’t quite figured it out, but one thing I would like to focus on is the scale.
How wide is this hallway? Maybe about five feet. How wide is a typical cell in a grid? About five feet. So how could you really setup this back-and-forth fight when everyone is stacked up one behind another in a line?
When I visualize zombies swarming a room, I think about dozens pushing and shoving through a doorway. However, even a reasonably sized room is maybe 15×15, so that’s a maximum of nine creatures that would fit into that room.
However, I’ll pick out another quote from the rules
…however, these ranges aren’t intended to be precisely measured during play. The suggested estimates are a quick guide for the GM to determine ranges during a scene, and they may adjust the map as needed to reflect whatever creates a satisfying story.
To me, that says that Daggerheart does support a fierce melee in a cramped space; you just have to zoom in and break up distances into smaller segments.
So what about grids?
The Daggerheart open beta rules do explicitly mention gridded battle maps
If your table would rather operate with more precise range rules, you can use a 1-inch grid battle map during combat. If you do, use the following guides for play:
If you’re coming from a crunchier system like 5e or have a table setup with a grid, you can do it. It just isn’t necessary for the rules
Collaborative battlemapping
A quick aside on one more element to battlemaps that I will likely revisit in the future.
One of the principles of Daggerheart is “Build the World Together,” and this is taken quite literally in The Sablewood Messengers adventure
Then take the forest terrain you’ve cut out and ask for your players to help you spread it across the table to build a map. You may also encourage them to grab other items from around the room to add terrain to the map. Build out the playspace together.
I love this but would actually take it even a step further. In the open beta rules, the designers mention “Dynamic Environment” and “Change the battlefield itself.” Combining that with “Build the World Together,” I think this is an invitation to let your player doodle and flesh out the terrain throughout combat.
I know the environment and terrain is a key part to making combat encounters unique, but I am terrible at building them in advance. That’s why my players so often fight in perfectly round or perfectly square rooms with a few random roundish things sprinkled in.
I know that a real terrain has to be richer than rough geometric shapes in dry erase, so what if everyone worked together to draw the battle map during the fight? Hand out markers and let players add details when it’s someone else’s turn.
If someone mentions wanting to hide behind a tree, draw in a tree. If you want to swing from a chandelier, then someone else needs to grab the marker because I am not that good at drawing.
But in any case, let the map evolve and add richness to the scene progressively.
But what about theater of the mind?
One major argument for theater of the mind is that in Daggerheart, combat isn’t a separate, rigorous subsystem. It plays like any other part of the game.
Since Daggerheart relies on a flexible back-and-forth conversation between the GM and players, combat has no initiative order, no rounds, and no distinct number of actions you can take on your “turn.” Instead, fights play out narratively moment-to-moment, just like non-combat scenes. This provides the players opportunities to team up together in their tactics, respond appropriately to narrative changes in the scene, and not be locked into violence once the first strike happens.
The mood at a table shifts when the GM asks for initiative, breaks out the battle map, and starts arranging the fight. Sometimes this creates a useful dramatic shift, but sometimes, it feels artificial.
In those moments, the theater of the mind style of non-combat play can perfectly transition in and out of those moments as well. I loved that the Critmas 2024 show just flowed into fights.
…so maps and minis or theater of the mind?
Well, the official answer is either theater of the mind or maps and minis are fine, and again, I think the designers truly believe that. Each works for different reasons, and you can probably use both for different situations.
However, I myself will be trying to use maps and minis without a grid. I want lean into the flexibility of the range system and paint the picture together to see what sort of game that is.
Elsewhere in Daggerheart
I think this is the first time I have seen the Beast Feast campaign frame being played! Also this is the first time I have seen BladeBoundSaga actually running a game. I haven’t watched The Pocket Dimension before, but from the bit I have watched so far, they are having a great time.
We have more official art to look at!
Leave a Reply