1.5 instead of 1-2-1?

[Lackhand]

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1, 2, 1 is in effect. This will be house-ruled back into *my* 4e. Oversimplification for the masses impresses me not.

I forget whether you're one of the lunatics whose already tried to play 4e (I know I am!) but, I gotta say, as theoretical houserules go, this one's a doozy of one you'll want to keep an open mind around.

It's only noticeable at real extremes, and I found it a LOT easier to ignore the extra distance from Euclidean diagonals (duh. But I mean a LOT easier.) than to include them, and giving the amount of pushing and shoving (I get shoved twelve times in an orthogonal line/I can spend my round getting back//I get shoved twelve times in a diagonal line/I cannot get back) we experienced, it almost makes more sense to make less sense.

Makes sense?

 

[Mistwell]

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1, 2, 1 is in effect. This will be house-ruled back into *my* 4e. Oversimplification for the masses impresses me not.

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1.41, 1.41, 1.41 is in effect. This will be house-ruled back into *my* 4e. Oversimplification for the masses impresses me not.

 

[The Little Raven]

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1, 1, 1 is in effect. High school geometry impresses me not.

 

[SaffroN]

Thats it... this causes too many arguments. I suggest we remove diagonal movement altogether. I call it the 2-2-2-2 rule. It worked for advance wars, it can work for us.

 

[Celebrim]

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1.41, 1.41, 1.41 is in effect. This will be house-ruled back into *my* 4e. Oversimplification for the masses impresses me not.

I'm perfectly willing to play with '1.41' in effect. It takes the game back towards its 'Little War' roots, but alot of times simply measuring is easier than counting and you don't have to pretend that the world is digital on a macro scale. When I designed rules for naval combat, that's what I ultimately decided.

I'm willing to play 1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2... and 1-2-1-2-1-2... and I probably could be talked into some other variations.

I'm not willing to even consider 1-1-1-1 and call it an RPG. It's petty and maybe even immature, but that's how I feel. I like games to be complicated. It's part of thier attraction. If I wanted simple, I play games even a computer can play like checkers or tic-tac-toe. Prior to this contriversy, little things like the 1-2-1-2 approximation didn't even enter into my head when someone used a word like 'complicated'. Someone that thinks 1-2-1-2 is complicated can't even do a mid-turn speed change in SFB, much less calculate one off of battery power.

Gamers don't get bothered by little problems like 1-2-1-2-1-2. If they did, we'd all still be playing Parcheesi and thinking Monopoly was the bees knees.

Ultimately, 1-1-1-1 isn't a big deal. It's the easiest thing to deal with with a house rule. What's so bothersome about 1-1-1-1 is that's its indicative of the whole approach to 4E.

I say we just give it up and all play WoW. Let some nerds figure out all that complicated math stuff for us so we can enjoy the gankage. Ideally, we can just pay someone to powerlevel our characters for us so that we don't have to play through the lame parts.

 

[HatWearingFool]

I'm not willing to even consider 1-1-1-1 and call it an RPG. It's petty and maybe even immature, but that's how I feel. I like games to be complicated. It's part of thier attraction.

If anyone ever wants to wonder why 3e isn't mainstream this is it. Most people don't like their hobbies to be complicated. Many people enjoy challenging their minds (I enjoy sudoko & kakarou).

If I wanted simple, I play games even a computer can play like checkers or tic-tac-toe. Prior to this contriversy, little things like the 1-2-1-2 approximation didn't even enter into my head when someone used a word like 'complicated'. Someone that thinks 1-2-1-2 is complicated can't even do a mid-turn speed change in SFB, much less calculate one off of battery power.

Gamers don't get bothered by little problems like 1-2-1-2-1-2. If they did, we'd all still be playing Parcheesi and thinking Monopoly was the bees knees.

No offense but I'm pretty sure games could be designed that were so complicated only computers could play them. The reason we don't is that humans wouldn't enjoy playing them. So just because it's a game a computer can play doesn't mean it has to be simple. A game with a million rules that swap in out of effect every second would be complicated for a human but pretty easy for a computer.

 

[Celebrim]

If anyone ever wants to wonder why 3e isn't mainstream this is it.

Mainstreaming the game was never a goal at my table. We were just trying to have fun, and if someone didn't get it, that was fine. I don't think I ever sat around thinking to myself, "You know, it would be great if this game wasn't quite as fun and interesting, if only more people I don't know would play it."

No offense but I'm pretty sure games could be designed that were so complicated only computers could play them.

No offense, but if we don't know how to play it, we can't very well tell a computer how to do it. The reason a computer can play tic-tac-toe or checkers is because we understand the game fully. Before a computer is ever good at a game, some one had to know how to play the game very well indeed.

So just because it's a game a computer can play doesn't mean it has to be simple. A game with a million rules that swap in out of effect every second would be complicated for a human but pretty easy for a computer.

That's just reflexes. You might as well claim a house fly has a complicated brain. (Fast reflexes are probably a side effect of having a really simple brain.) Before a computer could play such a game, it would have to be a simple game or even a computers reflexes couldn't keep up. I remember when a decent chess program couldn't compete with a human because it couldn't figure out how to move quickly enough. One of the reasons most computer strategy games have such dismal AI is that a decent AI would take so long figuring out how to move that it would bore a human player, and that's even if you were smart and had the AI considering moves during the human player's turn.

 

[MaelStorm]

I have no interest in gaming with someone who can't figure out why 1, 1, 1 is in effect. High school geometry impresses me not.

I agree. Plus there are so many tactical effect directly related to power now in 4E that some can become less valuable with 1.5 or 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Mainstreaming the game was never a goal at my table. We were just trying to have fun, and if someone didn't get it, that was fine. I don't think I ever sat around thinking to myself, "You know, it would be great if this game wasn't quite as fun and interesting, if only more people I don't know would play it."



No offense, but if we don't know how to play it, we can't very well tell a computer how to do it. The reason a computer can play tic-tac-toe or checkers is because we understand the game fully. Before a computer is ever good at a game, some one had to know how to play the game very well indeed.



That's just reflexes. You might as well claim a house fly has a complicated brain. (Fast reflexes are probably a side effect of having a really simple brain.) Before a computer could play such a game, it would have to be a simple game or even a computers reflexes couldn't keep up. I remember when a decent chess program couldn't compete with a human because it couldn't figure out how to move quickly enough. One of the reasons most computer strategy games have such dismal AI is that a decent AI would take so long figuring out how to move that it would bore a human player, and that's even if you were smart and had the AI considering moves during the human player's turn.

If i handed you a rule book for a game that contained a million rules would you call that a complicated game? What if I had rules that could only be used depending on the current layout of pieces on the board? If someone handed me that game I know I would say geez this is really complicated. Can't it be simplified?

EDIT: Lets take chess for example. A human might beat a computer when it's played in 2 dimensions, but what happens when we keep adding dimensions? I'm betting the computer is doing better once you hit about 4 dimensions or so. Why? Because it can handle the the spatial complexity much better than a human can. I'd have a lot of trouble imagining a 4 dimensional board, but it would be trivially easy to code on up as a 4 dimensional array.

Anyways I really don't want to derail this thread any further so I'll agree to disagree at this point.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Mainstreaming the game was never a goal at my table. We were just trying to have fun, and if someone didn't get it, that was fine. I don't think I ever sat around thinking to myself, "You know, it would be great if this game wasn't quite as fun and interesting, if only more people I don't know would play it."

Actually, part of the reason I'm looking forward to 4e is I currently expect it to be easier to intruduce to by housemate and his gf. Making a social hobby I enjoy easier to share with my friends is a good thing.

No offense, but if we don't know how to play it, we can't very well tell a computer how to do it. The reason a computer can play tic-tac-toe or checkers is because we understand the game fully. Before a computer is ever good at a game, some one had to know how to play the game very well indeed.

Uh, What? I can program a computer to do tonnes of things I can't do in my head. I can also program a computer to do lots more things that I can do in my head, but don't enjoy doing in my head on a Saturday afternoon with firends after a few beers.

That's just reflexes. You might as well claim a house fly has a complicated brain. (Fast reflexes are probably a side effect of having a really simple brain.) Before a computer could play such a game, it would have to be a simple game or even a computers reflexes couldn't keep up. I remember when a decent chess program couldn't compete with a human because it couldn't figure out how to move quickly enough. One of the reasons most computer strategy games have such dismal AI is that a decent AI would take so long figuring out how to move that it would bore a human player, and that's even if you were smart and had the AI considering moves during the human player's turn.

Well, since counting diagonals as 1-2-1-2 or 1.41-1.41-1.41-1.41 is nothing more than dumb arithmatic, (or "reflexes" as you refer to it) and exactly the type of thing computers are better than people at (The mathematics of WoW is much more complicated than any D&D game) then being able to do it is unimportant, and removing keeps the intellectual level of the game the same.