1 square Diagonal Movement: Reaction from Players

[hong]

If anecdotal evidence from DDM players is worth anything, the reports from DDM players on this board conclude that ainatan's examples are more common than you suggest at all levels of DDM skill, as some board members say that's 90% of all defensive situations faced in DDM. It's also the logical choice of anyone used to a physics that tries to depict motion in a way that tries to closely approximate what we see in our world. It's NOT intuitive to a new player that the practical effect in play is to favor playing the diagonals only and charge every round. So if the newbie is a ranged character or a tank, they are likely to make choices which lead either to character death or character uselessness. Neither of which are fun when you can't understand WHY you died.

Ah yes, I remember behaviour like that in the Civilization games. Similarly, if you had a frigate exploring the map, it was best to move in a diagonal zigzag pattern to uncover the most squares each round.

If they're going to use 1-1-1-1, it would be a very good idea to include examples of play showing how to use the diagonals to best advantage. That would keep newbies in the loop, and stop people converting over from being blindsided the first time someone does it.

 

[HeinorNY]

And this is a problem because...?

This is just a subjective question.

If you don't consider all these inconsistences to be a problem good for you and your group.

Our personal opinions are irrelevant to discuss if the rule is broken or not.

The rule is broken because it creates all those inconsistences and discrepancies I showed.

It's independent of our personal opinions.

It's up to our personal opinons to consider if this broken rule is a problem or not.

If you don't consider all these inconsistences to be a problem good for you and your group.

Do not confuse "problematic" rule with "broken" rule.

The rule is broken because it creates all those inconsistences and discrepancies I showed.

Our personal opinions are irrelevant to discuss if the rule is broken or not.

It's independent of our personal opinions.

Do not confuse "problematic" rule with "broken" rule.

It's up to our personal opinons to consider if this broken rule is a problem or not.

This is just a subjective question.

 

[hong]

This is just a subjective question.

If you don't consider all these inconsistences to be a problem good for you and your group.

Our personal opinions are irrelevant to discuss if the rule is broken or not.

The rule is broken because it creates all those inconsistences and discrepancies I showed.

The rule does not create inconsistencies and discrepancies with reference to itself. A ruleset that uses a 1-1-1-1 diagonal is internally self-consistent, which is all that can be asked of a formal ruleset. That it produces changed outcomes to the current ruleset is true, but also irrelevant. I don't know why you keep insisting that differing emergent behaviour under different rulesets somehow means that one ruleset must be "broken".

In fact, a similar rule has been used by the Civ games for 15 (?) years and nobody has complained. Now you might argue that the use of 1-2-1-2 is closer to a "true" gridless system, but that also has corner cases (eg moving out of AoO range of a large creature).

It's independent of our personal opinions.

It's up to our personal opinons to consider if this broken rule is a problem or not.

If you don't consider all these inconsistences to be a problem good for you and your group.

Do not confuse "problematic" rule with "broken" rule.

The rule is broken because it creates all those inconsistences and discrepancies I showed.

Our personal opinions are irrelevant to discuss if the rule is broken or not.

It's independent of our personal opinions.

Do not confuse "problematic" rule with "broken" rule.

It's up to our personal opinons to consider if this broken rule is a problem or not.

This is just a subjective question.

You're breaking up here.

 

[Zander]

I count diagonals as 1.5 (and round fractions down, as with everything else in 3.5e).

That's what I do too and it works a treat. A corollary of this is that an attacker with a 10' reach threatens 2 orthogonal squares away, or 1 orthogonal plus 1 diagonal, but not 2 diagonals.

I don't see how that is any different from the new rules.

I may be quoting you out of context in which case, I apologise, but the 1.5 house rule is different from the 4E system: in 4E, a 10' reach weapon threatens 2 diagonals away but not using the 1.5 system.

I intend to keep using the 1.5 table rule in 4E.

 

[delericho]

I may be quoting you out of context in which case, I apologise,

Just slightly . I meant it's no different in that in 3e, I have to count squares moved and movement points, and in 4e I will have to count squares moved and movement points, so nothing has changed in that regard.

Obviously, the costs will have changed slightly, which has some knock-on effects, but I wasn't directly addressing that.

 

[Psion]

Well, it does if you use the excuse that 1-1-1 ruins your sense of believability. Because using the current 1-2-1 rules would do the same.

Being a little free in determining what would break other people's believability, aren't you?

My general philosophy when it comes to game design and evaluation is that the rules should spend the most time on situations that actually come up in play frequently, and let the GM deal with the "corner cases". (No pun intended).

I can forsee players making movement decisions around the 1-1-1 convention that would "break the fourth wall". That is, make the grid seem as if it is a real part of the game world.

I do not forsee players ever "gaming" the 1-2-1 convention with any frequency. I would be surprised if I saw someone exploiting the difference in any meaningful way in the game.

Most of my objections to 4e to date have been fluff based. But AFAIAC, this is the single most damning rules change that I have heard of. It makes it very obvious that WotC is catering to a lowest common denominator that I am not part of.

 

[hong]

Most of my objections to 4e to date have been fluff based. But AFAIAC, this is the single most damning rules change that I have heard of. It makes it very obvious that WotC is catering to a lowest common denominator that I am not part of.

Aw crap. Now Civilization is part of 4E's lowest common denominator. And I SUCK at Civilization.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Most of my objections to 4e to date have been fluff based. But AFAIAC, this is the single most damning rules change that I have heard of. It makes it very obvious that WotC is catering to a lowest common denominator that I am not part of.

Better get a steel helmet, Psion...people will jump up and down on your head and call you "elitist gamer" and other pretty names for that.

 

[hong]

Better get a steel helmet, Psion...people will jump up and down on your head and call you "elitist gamer" and other pretty names for that.

You're not a REAL elitist gamer until you use a generic food metaphor.

 

[DarkKestral]

If they're going to use 1-1-1-1, it would be a very good idea to include examples of play showing how to use the diagonals to best advantage. That would keep newbies in the loop, and stop people converting over from being blindsided the first time someone does it.

Hong: I've thought about that the last few days, and I agree with you there; they should definitely have some examples which use the diagonals as they're likely to be used. I'm not sure WotC will actually do that though.