General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
A quick glance at this diagram by someone who had no experience with gaming would logically produce an answer stating that B was closer to A than C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storminator
The true beauty of 1-1-1 is that it requires NO explanation. None.
Try this: take a person that's never played any RPG before. Put their mini on the grid. Tell them the can move 6 squares. See if they come up with 1-2-1-2 on their own.
Stated in those terms, you are 100% correct. Proposing all movement in terms of squares and providing no references as to what that square means in the "reality" of the gaming environment will have the effect of rendering the gameworld as a board, with well defined spaces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storminator
I've recently done this with half a dozen players. Everyone has done 1-1-1. Compare to the many, many games I've seen where long time, experienced gamers have botched the 1-2-1-2 rules...
1-1-1 is just a superior rule.
PS
I wouldn't call 1-1-1 objectively superior or inferior. In "the world is a game board and I move like so" department the rule is simple and superior.
In a game that is more focused upon positioning and spacial relationships taken from the game world represented by minis on the table the rule is inferior by far.
Even with 3.x, I've wanted to pitch the grid entirely. 1-1-1-1 movement just makes me want to pitch it even more. And it's not just the movement, it's the everything must be in a square stuff. And hexes don't help with that.
So the question is are there any erasable playmats with no lines at all. That could break the grid reliance.
Even with 3.x, I've wanted to pitch the grid entirely. 1-1-1-1 movement just makes me want to pitch it even more. And it's not just the movement, it's the everything must be in a square stuff. And hexes don't help with that.
So the question is are there any erasable playmats with no lines at all. That could break the grid reliance.
You don't really need a gridless surface to ignore the confinements of a grid. Rulers or string with tic-marks done with a sharpie can be used on gridded surfaces. The grid can come in handy for eyeballing rough distances. Just use whatever movement rate you like and feel free to not start a combat with everything in a defined square. Combatants move and just end up wherever they end up.
6x + 4y = 7.21. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. Tie. (Both are 1 off of the closest integer).
I'll let other people address other stuff, but it surprises me that nobody addressed this.
These are not equivalent. Not even close.
The hypothetical character has a speed of 6. Your statement.
4E allows him to move an actual distance of 7.21. 3.5 does not. 4E lets the speed 6 PC cover 7 squares (35 feet). 3.5 does not.
That's the difference, and it's much, much larger than a 0.79 versus 1.21 difference indicates.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
I don't really think there's a best way to do it, because both 1-2-1-2 and 1-1-1-1 have advantages and problems. For some folks, the advantages of one outweigh the advantages of the other, and saying that one is "clearly" better is inane.
Seriously, though, there's almost nothing in 4e that's easier to houserule. I'd give 1-1-1-1 a try simply because it's the rules default, but change it to 1-2-1-2 if you don't care for it. I'd be tempted to still use 1-1-1-1 for auras, zones, and the like - but again, YMMV.
That's the difference, and it's much, much larger than a 0.79 versus 1.21 difference indicates.
As a fan of 1-1-1 movement I have to agree with Jeff. The mathematical proof does show larger deviation than N0Man is describing. 1-2-1 does model reality in most cases better than 1-1-1.
But I'm not trying to model reality. I'm just using the simple 1-1-1 mechanic to represent each figure's location in regard to another. And to me it doesn't matter that a character under 1-1-1 moves 36.05 feet (7.21 x 5) diagonally while a 1-2-1 mover has to spend 40 feet of speed to move the same distance. All that matters is that every 1-1-1 mover with a speed of 6 can move the same in-game distance.
As to the "rotating map" arguments. This would only matter if you actually started rotating the grid mid-combat, IMO.
The true beauty of 1-1-1 is that it requires NO explanation. None.
Try this: take a person that's never played any RPG before. Put their mini on the grid. Tell them the can move 6 squares. See if they come up with 1-2-1-2 on their own.
I've recently done this with half a dozen players. Everyone has done 1-1-1. Compare to the many, many games I've seen where long time, experienced gamers have botched the 1-2-1-2 rules...
1-1-1 is just a superior rule.
I wouldn't go as far as to say "superior". You are surely going to get someone to disagree with that statement. It brings up "superior for what?" It's not more accurate, but I whole-heatedly agree that it is more user-friendly and more intuitive to the average person (especially new players).
Honestly, it's I find it way more easy to eyeball movement now than before. It might make 45 degree angles deceptively close, but it also prevents frustration of not quite reaching a distance because you have 1 space more to move and your last diagonal costs 2 more.
In fact, 1-2-1 movement cheats players out of at least 1 square just about any time that the number of diagonal moves in the entire movement is an even number. I even half-wonder if those used to 1-2-1 are so used to being shorted a square of movement, that the extended diagonals of 1:1 just might appear to be even more jarring than they would by people who do not have 1-2-1 ingrained in them.
__________________ Law's Game Style: Storyteller 83%, Tactician 75%, Specialist 67%, Method Actor 58%, Power Gamer 33%, Casual Gamer 25%, Butt-Kicker 17%
But I'm not trying to model reality. I'm just using the simple 1-1-1 mechanic to represent each figure's location in regard to another.
I assume by "location in regard to another" you're not concerned about distance? Because 1-1-1 does not do relative distance between battlemat features (including PCs) well at all. And, as I indicated in the OP, not only is that important to me, but it's important under 4E's own rules. (You cannot trust actual distance on the battlemat in 4E the way you can in 3.5. When it has an effect on the rules -- and for a ranger, that's almost always -- you need to count and often recount.)
Quote:
As to the "rotating map" arguments. This would only matter if you actually started rotating the grid mid-combat, IMO.
It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.
I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.
That freaks me out.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Last edited by Jeff Wilder; 2nd July 2009 at 09:40 PM..
Jeff, as a skirmish player I'm surprised it bugs you that much. In the skirmish game it bugged me to no end when the change first hit, but even I grew to kind of like it then. 1-2-1-2 is mathematically more realistic, but had issues too, especially in terrain. With all the movement and mobility available in 4E, I've found the 1-1-1-1 mechanic just makes good mechanical sense, even if not great geometric.
I assume by "location in regard to another" you're not concerned about distance? Because 1-1-1 does not do relative distance between battlemat features (including PCs) well at all. And, as I indicated in the OP, not only is that important to me, but it's important under 4E's own rules. (You cannot trust actual distance on the battlemat in 4E the way you can in 3.5. When it has an effect on the rules -- and for a ranger, that's almost always -- you need to count and often recount.)
It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.
I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.
That freaks me out.
For distance measurements, I've adopted the same strategy other posters have advocated: quickly eyeball which is longer, X or Y axis, simply count that. Fast and easy.
As for your second point, I'm not sure I'm visualizing how the 1-1-1 rule of 4E is any way superior to the 1-2-1 of 3.x here. I mean, it seems to me the problem is rooted in the abstraction of the grid itself, not in how diagonals are measured. Wouldn't you also have discrepancies under 1-2-1? Could someone mock up a visual here for me?
(To whit: It seems a 5x5 room should have the same number of "squares" no matter what. The problem comes in when trying to use the same grid for two rooms that do not orient in the same manner; this is a failing of using the grid overlay to me. Unless I misunderstand the issue ...)
__________________ “When one awakes, and rolls from his pallet, and strides across the cold rushes to put flame to lantern. When the world is asleep around him. When the whippoorwill sings and crickets speak. When one is alone, in silence, with nothing but a book. That, my son, is glory. That is all the glory a man ever needs, and more besides.” - Sage Poridel Poriden, Sins of Our Fathers
Are you running SoW and are interested in getting some ideas on the overarching plot?
Looking for better ways to tie the disparate modules together?
Come visit my thread on doing exactly that! Also, visit the wiki it inspired! Player's stay out!
For distance measurements, I've adopted the same strategy other posters have advocated: quickly eyeball which is longer, X or Y axis, simply count that. Fast and easy.
In other words, "Don't go by representation of the minis and environment. Always go to the grid."
And that's the thing: as much as reasonably possible, I'd like to be able to ignore the grid. What I like about minis and battlemats (and pretty maps, etc) is that they provide a representation of relative locations and distances.
In 4E, they no longer do (in too many cases). And that really bugs me.
Quote:
I mean, it seems to me the problem is rooted in the abstraction of the grid itself, not in how diagonals are measured. Wouldn't you also have discrepancies under 1-2-1? Could someone mock up a visual here for me?
You can easily do it for yourself. On a sheet of graph paper, draw two 4E 5x5 rooms, one on the straights, one on the diagonals.
Now do the same thing using 1-2-1 measurement.
The difference is dramatic.
Quote:
(To whit: It seems a 5x5 room should have the same number of "squares" no matter what.
Yes, you'd think. But in 4E, a 5x5 room drawn on the diagonals contains twice as many squares as a 5x5 room drawn on the straights.
This has all kinds of weird implications under the 4E rules. Using Perception to search a full room, for instance, takes much longer if the room you're searching is drawn on the diagonals.
Can you handwave this weirdness? Of course. Should you? Probably.
But it bugs me. Everytime something like this happens in 4E, I stop thinking about my character searching a room and start thinking about the weirdness of 4E's geometry.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Jeff, as a skirmish player I'm surprised it bugs you that much.
Actually, this is one of the reasons I'm not a skirmish player any longer. (To be fair, it's the minority reason; the majority has to do with having read the writing on the wall, way in advance, with regard to who would be seizing control of the game.)
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
You can easily do it for yourself. On a sheet of graph paper, draw two 4E 5x5 rooms, one on the straights, one on the diagonals.
Now do the same thing using 1-2-1 measurement.
The difference is dramatic.
Yes, you'd think. But in 4E, a 5x5 room drawn on the diagonals contains twice as many squares as a 5x5 room drawn on the straights.
This has all kinds of weird implications under the 4E rules. Using Perception to search a full room, for instance, takes much longer if the room you're searching is drawn on the diagonals.
Can you handwave this weirdness? Of course. Should you? Probably.
But it bugs me. Everytime something like this happens in 4E, I stop thinking about my character searching a room and start thinking about the weirdness of 4E's geometry.
Buh? I'm don't even get where 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 factor into drawing rooms at all. By 5x5 do you mean 5 squares to a side? Or do you mean something else? again.
But it bugs me. Everytime something like this happens in 4E, I stop thinking about my character searching a room and start thinking about the weirdness of 4E's geometry.
4E uses Cthulloid geometry! The angles are all wrong! Run for your lives!!
It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.
I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.
That freaks me out.
On the bright side, that means 4e naturally includes non-euclidean architecture!
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
4E uses Cthulloid geometry! The angles are all wrong! Run for your lives!!
And do it diagonally, you'll be faster that way!
---
Jeff, is the grid is the biggest problem, you should eventually "fix" it. But if that's the only big issue with the game, I would not worry too much about, certainly not 3 pages long. (Off course, that's not your doing. )
For me, the major gain of the rule was speeding up determining how far movement and range is resolved. I seldomly need to know if something should be closer or farther, I need to know whether if something is in range or an attack or movement. And that goes a lot easier if I just determine the longer range along one axis instead of counting every 2nd diagonal square double. That's even - or especially ? - true if I have to move around corners and switch direction, since I don't have to keep the number of diagonal squares moved so far in my mind.
The change is not for verisimiltude or simulation or anything. It's to speed up gameplay.
If it confuses your long-learned instincts in counting 1-2-1 diagonals, it's obviously failing in that regard. But it's certainly working for me.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
In a game where people are fighting at full capacity at 1 hit point and then unconscious and dying 1 hit point later, does it really matter?
The 1-1-1 rule is just to speed up play. Nothing more. Nothing less.
A wound system that affects character effectiveness in combat would likewise be more realistic, but I prefer the hit point mechanic because it makes the game faster.
1-1-1 is not realistic. But it does make the game faster. I've probably DMed hundreds of 3e/3.5 tables using 1-2-1 and from personal experience, the change is for the better if your main goal is ease of play.
__________________ A free online fantasy humor comic.
I assume by "location in regard to another" you're not concerned about distance?
You assume correctly. I see it as an abstract representation, not a direct physical correllation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder
Because 1-1-1 does not do relative distance between battlemat features (including PCs) well at all. And, as I indicated in the OP, not only is that important to me, but it's important under 4E's own rules. (You cannot trust actual distance on the battlemat in 4E the way you can in 3.5. When it has an effect on the rules -- and for a ranger, that's almost always -- you need to count and often recount.)
We haven't experienced this problem. And the ranger in our group started quarrying the 3 closest targets when he hit 11th level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder
It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.
I've always seen this as a problem of drawing on the diagonal. It's not a new problem to 4E or 1-1-1 movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder
I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.
That freaks me out.
Most people don't draw their rooms in "number of squares" though. A 25' x 25' room is the same size whether drawn with the grid or skewed. A burst 2 in a skewed room still fills most of the room (it loses the corners because the corners of the burst pass outside the area of the room).
But it still doesn't matter to me because it is just an abstract representation of the game and everyone follows the same rules. IMO, fireballs are not perfect squares (4E), top-view step pyramids (3E), or even perfect circles (pre-3E). A fireball is a whirling mass of flames without shape, the rules just help us figure out who gets burnt.
You assume correctly. I see it as an abstract representation, not a direct physical correllation.
So it's a game-board, not a simulation of game-reality? Okay. But that's really not what I want. (Or, to be more precise, I obviously want the balance between "game-board" and "game-reality" closer to "game-reality" than you do.)
Quote:
We haven't experienced this problem. And the ranger in our group started quarrying the 3 closest targets when he hit 11th level.
I don't understand. Are you saying, "The ranger is our group doesn't make judgments on which foe is nearest by which mini is nearest; he counts the squares"?
If so, that's great for you, but my point is that one of the biggest benefits I've always gotten from using a battlemat is that I can simply look at the location and spacing of the minis and tell that This Guy is closer than That Guy. The ability to do that is of value to me, and 4E takes that ability away ... in many of the situations in which it's most useful.
Quote:
I've always seen this as a problem of drawing on the diagonal. It's not a new problem to 4E or 1-1-1 movement.
Uh ... it's not exactly a "new" problem, I guess, but it's a problem 4E has that 3.5 doesn't. Again, this is dramatically demonstrable: draw a 25 foot square room on the diagonals, and then draw it on the straights.
Quote:
A 25' x 25' room is the same size whether drawn with the grid or skewed.
Not on the battlemat, it's not. It's exactly twice as large (in 4E) when drawn on the diagonals. It is of twice the area. It contains significantly more full squares (not twice as many, because many of them will be half-squares.)
Quote:
A burst 2 in a skewed room still fills most of the room (it loses the corners because the corners of the burst pass outside the area of the room).
No, it fills half the room. (Have you actually looked at these situations? Because it's geometrical reality, not a matter of opinion.)
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Last edited by Jeff Wilder; 3rd July 2009 at 01:09 AM..
I'm don't even get where 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 factor into drawing rooms at all. By 5x5 do you mean 5 squares to a side? Or do you mean something else? 
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
