1/ The whole TOTM vs. grid discussion re: #DnD5E seems, to me, to really be about whether you want combat to be primarily a narrative construct, in which case distance/targets/areas of effect/etc. are handwaved in favor of imagination, or a tactical experience akin to a wargame.

2/ There's no wrong answer, but if you go the TOTM route you are definitely ignoring a large swath of rules in what is, as many indie designers have pointed out, a game designed from the ground up as a combat experience first and a narrative experience second.

3/ What's most interesting about this to me is that, if the D&D designers are primarily themselves playing TOTM, then they are essentially handwaving huge chunks of their own game design. That is *wild* & speaks to where the game's design is headed.

4/ It's also fine if you view the game rules as a kit for doing your own thing, which I think is the right way to view it. But the core rulebooks do not foreground this - rules options & variants, for example, are mostly sidebars & appendices. To many, the rules are the rules.

5/ The next edition of the game should probably make explicit up front that the core game experience is just the TOTM essentials, with early chapters in each volume on how to include more options & complexity if that's your jam.

6/ I have a feeling that's where the game is headed.

7/ Also, I hear legions of indie devs screaming in frustration as #DnD5e co-opts the experience they've been pitching as the reason you should play other games.

So let me just say - play other games, too.

~fin

Addendum/ I think TOTM becoming the popular preference for many "public" D&D folks is the natural outgrowth of live play games (shows?), where grids and battlemaps are a chore and TOTM is more naturally accessible to audiences & players (actors?) alike. This, too, is wild.