Base measurement in DDN

[Stalker0]

With 3' squares, really, how could you miss hitting someone standing in their own 3' square?

Well technically the two targets could be up to 6' away from each other if they are in the corners of their own square, and 6' is a pretty decent distance I'd say.

But regardless, to me the 3 vs 5 vs X is simply a numbers game. For example, we know that swordfighting isn't just about about standing back and swinging your weapon. It involves a lot of close quarters fighting as well as some wrestling. A swordfighter sometimes holds his blade in his own hands and slams it into the opponent.

These types of maneuvers would require that the characters get right in each other's face. Yet even though my character never leaves his square (even though by right's he should) to deliver these attacks, my verisimilitude survives....because its an abstraction.

I think the 1 yard (aka 3 feet) model numerically is superior to the 5 foot standard, and its not so different that the abstraction can't still work.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Well technically the two targets could be up to 6' away from each other if they are in the corners of their own square, and 6' is a pretty decent distance I'd say.

Not really. Standing along the back edge of the square, your body is still pushing inwards around a foot, as will your opponent's, and that's with standing rigid and straight. So it's only 4 feet on the outside. Maybe if it was a knife fight. But with most any other weapon, you would have to be wielding it with your arms held at your sides. Which you wouldn't be, and most fighting stances would have you turning your body to the side to give the slimmest profile to your opponent, so you'd be filling the length of the 3' square more often than the width.

But regardless, to me the 3 vs 5 vs X is simply a numbers game. For example, we know that swordfighting isn't just about about standing back and swinging your weapon. It involves a lot of close quarters fighting as well as some wrestling. A swordfighter sometimes holds his blade in his own hands and slams it into the opponent.

These types of maneuvers would require that the characters get right in each other's face. Yet even though my character never leaves his square (even though by right's he should) to deliver these attacks, my verisimilitude survives....because its an abstraction.

I think the 1 yard (aka 3 feet) model numerically is superior to the 5 foot standard, and its not so different that the abstraction can't still work.

True, but I can envision this as the opponents up against the common edge of their squares for such close quarter fighting. And while this fits with the 3' square too, I also like having the space for characters to weave and duck, to threaten, to gauge when best to close and strike, and to allow for other weapon styles and attacks (thrusts, cleaves, etc.).

But yes, a numbers game as you say, which is why I'm totally fine with distances being decided by the group.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd go with paces = about 1 yard = about 1 meter = about 1 square, with emphasis on the "about." That's not the historical pace, but it will do. Plus, if someone really doesn't like it and wants to read it as 5', not much harm done. While I'm at it, I'll drop all the "he/she" business for generic "it" and switch to "stones" for weight measurements. Anything that doesn't weigh at least close to one "stone" is not counted for encumbrance, unless you tote a lot of them. Only characters with names can have a gender-specific pronoun. Random goblin #3 or anonymous character used for an example is always "it." But I digress ...

In the more free-form variants (e.g. no grid, not much precision, etc.), it really doesn't matter much what measurements you use, as long as it corresponds to something on the sheet and doesn't cause too much trouble.

For the more tactical system, I'd finally deal with this pernicious issue of creatures running right by someone armed with a longsword by saying that a medium character takes up an area one pace across, but readily controls all such squares around them for purposes of movement. Thus a fighter in the middle of a 10' corridor really can at least slow down creatures trying to bypass it. Then your reach extends another pace beyond that, assuming you have a decent size weapon (perhaps "medium" weapons). That is, with a longsword, you can hit someone 2 paces away, but with a dagger only those "adjacent". The disadvantage of these longer weapons would be that if you get too crowded (e.g. narrow corridor with opponents on two sides) you have a penalty. Thus the fighter having that shorter sidearm and knowing how to use it now makes more sense. The advantage is that you threaten a much bigger area.

 

[Klaus]

With 3' squares, really, how could you miss hitting someone standing in their own 3' square?

Happens all the time in boxing, MMA and other fighting sports.

 

[Hussar]

The nicest part about the 3 foot square vs 5 foot is that it wouldn't really impact existing adventures all that much. Some of the room descriptions might be a bit different, but, not hugely. Bit harder to count ranges - counting by 3's is different than 5's, if you want to keep it in feet, but, if you change everything to "pace" then math problems go away. Counting by ones is pretty easy. And, to be honest, it sounds better than "squares".

 

[Nytmare]

I did not vote, because none of the choices fit the level of abstraction I'm happy with.

In my experience, strict measurements only invite arguments over logistics and warped ideas about how reality should work ("how could you miss hitting someone standing in their own 3 foot square?"). I dislike having to fight against the parallax between the reality of what the batlemat is saying, and the reality of how people interact and actually move around in relation to each other in a space. Adding concrete distances betrays the fact that the battlemat is all an illusion.

A gauge for description is one thing, but once it gets to the "rules" end of the pool, the only information I want is whether something is close enough to hit, or whether it is too far away.

That being said, although the 5' increments were maybe easier for the player base to count; I think I'd prefer "about 1 yard/meter".