"4E, as an anti-4E guy" (Session Two)

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

Could you demonstrate this? I'm not seeing it.

If I move 6 "squares" diagonally in 1-2-1 movement, I've moved 5.65 squares of actual distance. I'm losing .35 squares. 12 squares is a loss of .69 squares. In both cases, it's better to round down because six (or 12) squares is the upper limit by the Speed rules; allowing another square breaks that limit, while disallowing another square does not.

If this isn't what you mean, I'm missing what you're saying.

Let's say you move 14 "squares" diagonally. As the crow flies, this is about 19.8 squares of distance and will take 21 squares of 1-2-1 movement. Effectively, you have been forced to use an extra square of movement. This is against the extra 5.8 squares of movement that moving 1-1-1 has sped your character by in only taking 14 squares to traverse the same distance.

While neither is perfect, 1-2-1 would appear by any fair analysis to be substantially more accurate/fairer.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Let's say you move 14 "squares" diagonally. As the crow flies, this is about 19.8 squares of distance and will take 21 squares of 1-2-1 movement.

So ... you lose a square of movement if your Speed is at least 35 feet, and you double-move the full distance, and you're moving only diagonally?

I can honestly say taht has never happened to me in a 3.5 game.

Any idea what the "3.5 players are so used to getting shorted a square that they don't even notice" thing is about? It can't be the above, surely?

Effectively, you have been forced to use an extra square of movement. This is against the extra 5.8 squares of movement that moving 1-1-1 has sped your character by in only taking 14 squares to traverse the same distance.

While neither is perfect, 1-2-1 would appear by any fair analysis to be substantially more accurate/fairer.

Obviously.

The "1-1-1 is simpler" is a much better approach. Math is simply not on 1-1-1's side, in any way. "I prefer simpler to more realistic," on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable. Not to our taste, depending on the balance, but reasonable.

[Gimby]

Theres another way of looking at it, whereby the abstraction isn't in the distances on the mat but in the speed of the characters.

"6 squares" or even "30 feet" (or if you like, "six seconds") can be seen as an approximation to the actual speed of the characters - clearly not all characters move at exactly the same rates. If you "lose" a square maybe you stumbled slightly, if you "gain" a square maybe you moved down a slight incline or found an extra burst of speed.

I'll agree that this isn't ideal (as such effects are repeatable due to the orientation of the grid) but it might help rationalise a little.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

So ... you lose a square of movement if your Speed is at least 35 feet, and you double-move the full distance, and you're moving only diagonally?

I can honestly say taht has never happened to me in a 3.5 game.

Any idea what the "3.5 players are so used to getting shorted a square that they don't even notice" thing is about? It can't be the above, surely?

Combined with the whole limit thing, yeah?

Perhaps I can provide an example from our gaming group that might enlighten. Most of us in our group accept that if for whatever reason, something does not quite work be it missing a DC by 1, not quite making it into the desired square, or just not dealing enough damage to kill off an enemy before he kills one of the party; then we just accept it. We tip the hat and say, close but not enough to get the cigar. However we also have a player who I'll call Dave. Dave whinges and whines and tries to "wheeze" to try and circumvent a fail that was almost a success. Every time it happens - even if it is not his turn or character. There is something in his makeup that can't abide a loss that was almost a win. I think winning is important to Dave. The rest of us just accept failure.

Perhaps then our mentality is one where we're resigned to occasionally being 1 square short as it were. Or perhaps on the other hand it is just easier to humour Dave and let him win. To my mind, such wins are hollow because deep down, you know you failed but heh... if everyone else want's to win???

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

I've knocked up something in illustrator to show you what Jeff's talking about. The 5 x 5 square has 25 square units of area - unless it is drawn on the diagonal in 4e, then of course it has 50 square units of area.

Except the diagonal room isn't 25'x25'. Turing the actual 25'x25' room on the diagonal results in a room that is 7 squares from N to S and W to E, not 10 squares as you drew.

[N0Man]

So for those arguing 1-2-1 superiority, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that 1-2-1 movement allows circumventing of threatening reach by approaching from the corners?

Does that seem realistic to you?

[FireLance]

See sig.

That said, my group uses 1-1-1-1 in actual play, and on the occasions when using 1-2-1-2 instead would have made a difference, I've found that I'm usually too busy thinking about something else to notice.

[Rolflyn]

Originally Posted by N0Man

So for those arguing 1-2-1 superiority, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the fact that 1-2-1 movement allows circumventing of threatening reach by approaching from the corners?

Does that seem realistic to you?

No, it doesn't seem realistic, and that's why there is specifically a rule for this in 3.0 and 3.5, and I would suppose anyone using 1-2-1-2 would carry that rule over to 4e.

[Jhaelen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

You're missing the point.

4E's error matters ... the PC actually moves farther (actual distance) than his 6 speed should allow. (Specifically, 7.21 in actual distance.)

Except actual distances do not matter. We're talking about combat movement here which is measured in squares. There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway.

That's also why the example with diagonal rooms totally falls flat:
How I divide a room into squares is completely arbitrary, unless I'm interested in a division that is easiest to use for an abstracted combat system like the one in 4E. Then it makes sense to divide every room in such a way that I don't actually have diagonal rooms.

I realize this is all about personal prefernces, but even in my 3E games I never bothered with actual, accurate measurements. I like using poster maps and dungeon tiles which often don't have the 'correct' size. Why should it matter?

When I'm describing rooms in a dungeon I don't give exact dimensions either. I mean, it's not as if the pcs are taking their time using rulers to measure a room down to fractions of an inch.

Actually, by measuring combat movement and distances in squares exclusively you have an incredible advantage: You can always ensure the encounter area has an appropriate size for the encounter. Who cares if you're using 4 feet per square for one room and 7 feet per square for another?

About the only thing that might get tricky with such a 'fuzzy' approach is placing secret rooms in an adventure without providing any kind of clues they exist except a suspicious 'gap' in your dungeon map.
But since that's not representative of the kind of adventure design I enjoy these days, it doesn't bother me in the least.

[Pickles JG]

I do not think there is much point arguing the superiority of one system or the other, the reaction seems to be mostly on what feels right to the parties involved.

In contradiction of that I would say that it seems a funny thing to get too hung up on as it is so easily house ruled. To me squares on the battle mat relate to the character's geography in the way that hit points relate to their physical well being.

[Doug McCrae]

It's D&D. It's not realistic. At all.

A 90-year old wizard with 3 dex, 3 str and 3 con has the same movement rate as a 25-year old ranger with all 18s. If he wins initiative an axeman can charge 60 feet and swing at an archer who had an arrow nocked at the start of combat before the archer gets a shot off. A shortsword is just as effective against full plate as a bec-de-corbin. There are classes, and levels, and hit points.

So why is 1-1-1 an issue and the rest aren't? If you wanted realism you wouldn't be playing D&D. Time after time, D&D chooses playability over realism. The old 1-2-1 was a weird outlier here.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

So why is 1-1-1 an issue and the rest aren't? If you wanted realism you wouldn't be playing D&D. Time after time, D&D chooses playability over realism. The old 1-2-1 was a weird outlier here.

I think it's because everyone has something that breaks their suspension of disbelief. For me it's modern tech in D&D; I just can't stand it, and it pulls me out of the game. For other people I know it's this rule. The 1-1-1 rule is minor to me, and I actually kind of like it, but I certainly have friends who find it to be a major irritant. I don't agree, but I understand, and I sympathize.

[Nifft]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

That's cool if that's how you like to play.

Eh. We played 1-2-1-2 when that's how 3.x said to do it. We now use 1-1-1 because that's what 4e is designed around. My preference is for hexes.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

What about people that enjoy and prefer a more immersive gaming experience?

This is the first time I've heard wargame measurement called "more immersive gaming". The folks who use the word "immersive" usually seem to wish to get away from a battle map entirely.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

We all get a buzz out of how we prefer to game. Can you see however that "game distance" for some is not that great or fun?

I really can't see why it's such a big deal for anyone.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

I thought Jeff made an excellent point about using the miniatures and battlemap as a spacial picture that helps him stay in the game rather than having to calculate and discern the difference between what appears to be true and what is actually true. In this way, staying with a cartesian space is more assistive than a symbolic gameboard.

Nope, 3e's map rules fail for being just as deeply in "error" as chess board distance.

√2 ≠ 1.5

If one wants to use actual distance, one should get out one's ruler and string. One should not count squares, because counting squares is always going to result in an "error", unless of course one is smart enough to count in units of √2.

Basically, Jeff showed preference for one abstraction, but then went on to assert that his preferred abstraction is actual distance, while the other abstraction is "an error". Both abstractions are equally non-actual. If you want actual distance, use rulers & string.

Grid = abstraction, not actual. After that it's just quibbling.

- - -

But all that isn't the main thrust of my beef with Jeff's error. My beef is that he wrongly asserts 1-1-1 is somehow hard to learn, that using it requires some kind of special training. We've all been using Chess distance for much of our lives, in many different contexts, and even children pick it up right away.

"Hexes >>> Squares", -- N

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Nifft

Nope, 3e's map rules fail for being just as deeply in "error" as chess board distance.

√2 ≠ 1.5

So? SQRT(2) is much, much closer to 1.5 than it is to 1.

Basically, Jeff showed preference for one abstraction, but then went on to assert that his preferred abstraction is actual distance

That is not what I said. Please reread.

Both abstractions are equally non-actual.

But one abstraction is far closer to modeling actual spatial relationships than the other. And you're very well aware of it.

But all that isn't the main thrust of my beef with Jeff's error. My beef is that he wrongly asserts 1-1-1 is somehow hard to learn, that using it requires some kind of special training.

I prefer to believe that you're not deliberately misrepresenting me, so I'll chalk it up to other things.

What I said was that 1-1-1 causes problems for me because it does not model distances between things on the battlemat well. Everyone reading this knows that it is entirely possible to have three features on the battlemat -- A, B, and C -- such that actual physical distance between them can have C closer to A than B, while 4E's measurement of distance in the game says exactly the opposite. What I have said is that I prefer the one (actual physical distance) to accurately (within the limits of playability) represent the other (in-game distance), which 3.5's measurement provides.

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Jhaelen

Except actual distances do not matter. We're talking about combat movement here which is measured in squares. There doesn't have to be any relation to actual distances since combats are an abstraction anyway.

Player's Handbook, page 283:

"Your speed is measured in squares on the battle grid, with each 1-inch square representing a 5-foot square in the game world. A character who has a speed of 6 can move up to 6 squares (or 30 feet) on the battle grid by using a move action."

Why do people contort so hard, to the point of simply making up rules, rather than simply sticking with "I like 1-1-1 movement because I find it easier"? It's very strange.

[Gimby]

I suppose the point isn't so much claiming that its a better approximation (its not) but showing how to make it less brain-breaking.

Personally, I find a lot of the immersion breaking stuff that people have complained about arises from the game being turn based. If you can accept that abstraction then an odd square difference in movement doesn't (to me) seem that bad. YMMV and all that, of course.

-edit plus, its the easiest of things to change if you don't like it, in any case.

[AllisterH]

(Hmm...interesting thread title, might find some insightful comments...)

What's this...a 1-1-1 vs 1-2-1 WITH diagrams and math?



(dives out of thread)

{sorry, I just couldnt resist}

[miscreationist]

We use an offset square grid as opposed to hexes (same principle) and use cones for blasts in my 4e game as was suggested when the initial conversations here on EN World about the 1-1-1 vs 1-2-1 topic came up. While true you cannot have 8 opponents surrounding one, this has not been an issue for us.

Edit: Jeff, I understand your group was trying to use the rules as written. I'm just sharing my group's solution.

[N0Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

So? SQRT(2) is much, much closer to 1.5 than it is to 1.

Sure it is, but as I said repeatedly already, that only matters in 45 degree angles. Every diagonal isn't necessarily really adding 0.41 to the distance moved, unless your character is literally moving forward, then diagonal,then forward, etc. Rather the entire line would be SQRT( (X2 - X1)^2 + (Y2-Y1)^2), but that can break down with dodging back and forth.

I hadn't even looked at it that way before, but is that how you are perceiving it? That if you are taking a path that is a diagonal, that you literally are moving forward, taking a diagonal, moving forward, moving forward, and taking a diagonal? If that's the way you are perceiving it, then the differences between 1-2-1 and 1-1-1 would seem greater.

Personally, I look at the spots that diagonals as chosen as kind of arbitrary and still envision my character as *usually* going in a straight or even curved path, regardless of how jaggy the grid movement really is. The individual jags and diagonals really never mattered much to me unless there are hazards, obstacles, or opportunity attacks involved. Otherwise, they are just arbitrary points along the path to the destination.

For me, it takes me out of immersion a moment to count not only my movement, but to count diagonals. I much prefer to quickly eyeball it and charge in.

[Nifft]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

Seriously, a tactical RPG that relies on the players deliberately training themselves to do that ... it's just bizarre. I honestly don't get how it can not bother people.

Originally Posted by Nifft

But all that isn't the main thrust of my beef with Jeff's error. My beef is that he wrongly asserts 1-1-1 is somehow hard to learn, that using it requires some kind of special training. We've all been using Chess distance for much of our lives, in many different contexts, and even children pick it up right away.

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

I prefer to believe that you're not deliberately misrepresenting me, so I'll chalk it up to other things.

Sure, you can chalk it up to me accurately representing you.

- - -

Look, there's nothing wrong with having a preference for one abstraction over another, but that's not necessarily a flaw in the system which uses an abstraction other than the one you prefer.

1-1-1 has odd implications in all sorts of games, like Civilization, where exploring diagonally is almost always superior. But lots of game designers seem to like it, and sell those games quite successfully.

So yeah. It's not that big a deal.

Cheers, -- N