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

[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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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