Games

Ultimately, the world is not a grid. So while grids may be great for pure strategy games like XCom (and I really enjoyed XCom, not knocking it at all), I think a lot of people would say that for more story-focused games like RPGs, they break the immersion. Thus, BG3 (which I'm also really enjoying) does not use one. Neither do any of the party-based RPGs that I can think of off the top of my head. For me personally, it depends on the game. I am perfectly happy without one in BG3. But I enjoyed having one for XCom, and more recently for Warhammer 40k Mechanicus. I would offer that as a suggestion if you are looking for a gridded turn-based strategy game.

I find grids helpful when I'm the game master, because they simplify the job of fairly resolving distance and AoE mechanics, and speed the game along. Also in big strategy games, because they allow me to plan ahead on a map with many (often stacked) units without unfair surprises.

I'm enjoying the gridless approach here, though. The computer handles the geometry crunching, there aren't too many actors for me to keep track of, and the freedom of movement lets me play with tactics that would be impossible on a grid.

Worth noting: I don't think D&D has ever required a grid, so it might be inaccurate to say this game has gotten rid of it.

Bg3 it's not an strategy game, it's and RPG, in fact based in the trrpg rules of d&d 5

Also BG1 and 2, weren't grided, so it's not like they doing it to "modernize" the game.

I really enjoyed all xcoms (from the msdos first games, so many hours wasted with xcom apocalypse...) But also enjoyed al bg (including not MMO Neverwinter, icewind Dale, etc)

Simply, it's not one of these games.

The assertion is plain wrong. Some games don't use grid, some do. There is no trend that I can see.

Solasta released an expansion this year and aow4 dropped in April iirc. There certainly are many others.

I do not miss the grid at all, I hate being conformed to grids instead of more fluid real movement. It’s just more immersive to order my troops to move as a real person could move, not slide on a rail and stand there in this open space like a chess piece

Grids aren't needed to get the same effect in a computer game. Also, when speaking about video games specifically, "grid based" combat has a bit of technical differences that you don't necessarily want or need in a strategy game. It affects positioning and animations. It makes diagonal movement and height changes awkward. It makes sense when playing PnP and helping to visualize and handle rules. But when a computer is doing all that in the background, having the freedom of movement and the visuals match a more realistic way of traversing terrain is better.

I don't really like grid-based movement in video games. It always feels weirder. It always shows how absurd some rules based on positioning are. It just sucks vs the more fluid style like BG3 has. Like, I love me some XCom, but I've played knock-offs that don't use grids, and they feel way better.

I like that they donnt use the grid. Feels more natural. That being said, I would occasionally like a measurement tool or something so you can see if you're within 5/60 ft or whatever

It's not the lack of a grid specifically that bothers me in BG3, it's that there are a lot of scenarios where in tabletop an enemy would be ruled to have cover, but in BG3 the shot is simply obstructed and your character needs to move before they can take it.

Also sometimes the automatic positioning for melee attacks is bad and will tell you that you can't reach, but if you click to move and then click to attack you actually can.

Also the fact that AoE spells target the ground specifically instead of an arbitrary point in space, which means in some areas you get weird situations where the enemies are close enough together to fireball all of them but you can't do it from your location because the spot where you need to place the fireball is in a slight depression that you can't see into from where you are.

Also there is some weirdness about casting AoEs through doorways, where even if you can see someone that doesn't mean you can fireball them because it's treating the fireball "projectile" as being wider than I would expect, so that it can only go through at certain angles.

I do think a grid system would be less likely to have these issues, but they could be fixed without it.

I play a lot of strategy games and absolutely hate the grid. Always feels super basic and limiting to strategy.

Think it's just a personal taste thing/what you grew up with playing.

Grids certainly don't slow me down, though they do reduce the spectacle and I suppose lower immersion. They certainly make me more aware that I am playing a game rather than taking actions in a world that actually exists. I'd say this is a feature rather than a bug though as they are often used in games that I want to be handling in that analytic piece moving fashion.

I'vealways seen grids as a way to simplify what is otherwise a challenging mechanic to track and utilize. They function as something of a "good enough" for when you are willing to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. And there's something to be said for the way that simplicity can be appealing to the player, as it get some of the more fiddily mechanics out of the way and frees you up to focus on more substantial or engaging mechanics like character builds and team comps.

So, do I miss then when they're replaced with the more intricate measurement systems that they were designed to simplify? Not really. But I can certainly see why some would feel that way.

Grids definitely make a different type of game. I think BG3 makes sense gridless, but I also enjoy Into the Breach which is very chess-like.

Oh I mean I never thought of it. I kinda like a grid. But I think that a grid would severely limit bg3

I think your just playing games that don't have a grid. I still play a lot of games with a grid. If you want a strategy game that has a grid, my dad has been playing a lot of jagged alliance 3 and has been saying very positive things about it.

Even in tabletop rpgs, I advocate for the removal of the grid. I prefer to do combat in the style of tabletop wargames, free movement in any direction, treating each inch of movement as 5 feet (for D&D and Pathfinder).

I just find that a lot more dynamic.

They could just make an option to unable/disable it. I like grids :)

@anakin78z Also the DnD Grid kinda break when you put it in an actual 3D world. It work by convention on a TTRPG but the work around to do it are just not really sensible when you step away from the table. Diagonal movement, sphere, angled line,... All of that kinda gets more messy to apply if you are representing a 3D world.

I'm currently in two different D&D campaigns. One plays combats on the regular 5ft grid, the other is "theatre of mind" where where everything is just described. Both are fine, I don't really feel like I lose anything with either method, it's just two different abstractions for the same ideas.

Larian's previous game, Divinity Original Sin: 2, was still highly tactical despite its lack of grid-based positioning or targeting. The game used its mechanics of skills, freer movement, and surfaces/clouds to really shake up each battle and make them unique. Each combat was like a little puzzle. For me, who usually bounces off the likes of XCOM, it was absolutely brilliant. BG3 is much the same, just with a different ruleset (and I'm glad I was familiar with it beforehand. It must be daunting to be thrown into 5e without having a book thrown at you).

Being a nerd now, there is actually a grid in these games, but it's only used for navmeshes and the surfaces. The game doesn't expose either of these to you in-game. Visually, the edges of surfaces are messy and extend/retract from where they technically are according to the engine. I suppose you can kind of see the navmesh grid by clicking all around the edges of walkable areas, but other than walking up to edges, the navmesh has little impact on anything else.

I prefer grids myself, I've never gotten very far in gridless strategy games I've played (Mario+Rabbids, Valkyria Chronicles) because I just have too hard a time keeping track of what I can do with any given unit when I don't have the grid for reference. That said, I can understand the appeal to some as an immersion enhancement, as others have said, and as something of a "modernization" of turn-based strategy allowing for more freedom of movement. Cool if you enjoy that kind of thing in strategy, but just not my jam. I was raised on Fire Emblem in the genre, lol.

Grids rule, free movement drools

I like both, frankly. I get going with free positioning in BG3, mostly because that's how it is in both BG1&2 and Divinity OS 1&2, so it'd be a weird change. But also, it makes sense on CRPGs where you're trying to depict very fluid, dynamic "do what you want" situations more than tactical precision.

I do hate in BG3 when I accidentally step on something or a command to do something places a character on top of a hazard first, but... you know, table top jank captured, I suppose.

I will say that I'm not sure "immersion" is what the grid triggers for me one way or the other, though. Mostly grid tactical games are about optimization and precision while free roaming is about looser, fluid improvisation. If it's a full-on tactics game I'd prefer a grid for that reason, for narrative RPGs I can go either way.

I did like Midnight Suns quite a bit, although that's because I'm also a CCG guy and a superhero nerd, so that angle works for me. Weirdly, it was XCOM 2 that didn't quite do it for me compared to the first.

Off topic, how's Solasta? Halfway through my second playthrough of BG3, and looking for another crpg. I'm not new to the genre (played wasteland 2-3, PoE: DF and D2OS previously), but new to DnD.

On topic: I don't know if I need it, honestly. I feel like I would appreciate knowing distances and where exactly my character will stand according to a grid, but I haven't found it to be very necessary.