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

[ExploderWizard]

In this arrangement is A closer to B or C:

AXXXXXXXB
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXC

By RAW 4e A is equally distant to B and C.

A quick glance at this diagram by someone who had no experience with gaming would logically produce an answer stating that B was closer to A than C.

The true beauty of 1-1-1 is that it requires NO explanation. None.

Try this: take a person that's never played any RPG before. Put their mini on the grid. Tell them the can move 6 squares. See if they come up with 1-2-1-2 on their own.

Stated in those terms, you are 100% correct. Proposing all movement in terms of squares and providing no references as to what that square means in the "reality" of the gaming environment will have the effect of rendering the gameworld as a board, with well defined spaces.

I've recently done this with half a dozen players. Everyone has done 1-1-1. Compare to the many, many games I've seen where long time, experienced gamers have botched the 1-2-1-2 rules...

1-1-1 is just a superior rule.

PS

I wouldn't call 1-1-1 objectively superior or inferior. In "the world is a game board and I move like so" department the rule is simple and superior.

In a game that is more focused upon positioning and spacial relationships taken from the game world represented by minis on the table the rule is inferior by far.

 

[Rolflyn]

Even with 3.x, I've wanted to pitch the grid entirely. 1-1-1-1 movement just makes me want to pitch it even more. And it's not just the movement, it's the everything must be in a square stuff. And hexes don't help with that.

So the question is are there any erasable playmats with no lines at all. That could break the grid reliance.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Even with 3.x, I've wanted to pitch the grid entirely. 1-1-1-1 movement just makes me want to pitch it even more. And it's not just the movement, it's the everything must be in a square stuff. And hexes don't help with that.

So the question is are there any erasable playmats with no lines at all. That could break the grid reliance.

You don't really need a gridless surface to ignore the confinements of a grid. Rulers or string with tic-marks done with a sharpie can be used on gridded surfaces. The grid can come in handy for eyeballing rough distances. Just use whatever movement rate you like and feel free to not start a combat with everything in a defined square. Combatants move and just end up wherever they end up.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

6x + 4y = 7.21. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. Tie. (Both are 1 off of the closest integer).

I'll let other people address other stuff, but it surprises me that nobody addressed this.

These are not equivalent. Not even close.

The hypothetical character has a speed of 6. Your statement.

4E allows him to move an actual distance of 7.21. 3.5 does not. 4E lets the speed 6 PC cover 7 squares (35 feet). 3.5 does not.

That's the difference, and it's much, much larger than a 0.79 versus 1.21 difference indicates.

 

[Obryn]

I don't really think there's a best way to do it, because both 1-2-1-2 and 1-1-1-1 have advantages and problems. For some folks, the advantages of one outweigh the advantages of the other, and saying that one is "clearly" better is inane.

Seriously, though, there's almost nothing in 4e that's easier to houserule. I'd give 1-1-1-1 a try simply because it's the rules default, but change it to 1-2-1-2 if you don't care for it. I'd be tempted to still use 1-1-1-1 for auras, zones, and the like - but again, YMMV.

-O

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

These are not equivalent. Not even close.

That's the difference, and it's much, much larger than a 0.79 versus 1.21 difference indicates.

As a fan of 1-1-1 movement I have to agree with Jeff. The mathematical proof does show larger deviation than N0Man is describing. 1-2-1 does model reality in most cases better than 1-1-1.

But I'm not trying to model reality. I'm just using the simple 1-1-1 mechanic to represent each figure's location in regard to another. And to me it doesn't matter that a character under 1-1-1 moves 36.05 feet (7.21 x 5) diagonally while a 1-2-1 mover has to spend 40 feet of speed to move the same distance. All that matters is that every 1-1-1 mover with a speed of 6 can move the same in-game distance.

As to the "rotating map" arguments. This would only matter if you actually started rotating the grid mid-combat, IMO.

 

[N0Man]

The true beauty of 1-1-1 is that it requires NO explanation. None.

Try this: take a person that's never played any RPG before. Put their mini on the grid. Tell them the can move 6 squares. See if they come up with 1-2-1-2 on their own.

I've recently done this with half a dozen players. Everyone has done 1-1-1. Compare to the many, many games I've seen where long time, experienced gamers have botched the 1-2-1-2 rules...

1-1-1 is just a superior rule.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "superior". You are surely going to get someone to disagree with that statement. It brings up "superior for what?" It's not more accurate, but I whole-heatedly agree that it is more user-friendly and more intuitive to the average person (especially new players).

Honestly, it's I find it way more easy to eyeball movement now than before. It might make 45 degree angles deceptively close, but it also prevents frustration of not quite reaching a distance because you have 1 space more to move and your last diagonal costs 2 more.

In fact, 1-2-1 movement cheats players out of at least 1 square just about any time that the number of diagonal moves in the entire movement is an even number. I even half-wonder if those used to 1-2-1 are so used to being shorted a square of movement, that the extended diagonals of 1:1 just might appear to be even more jarring than they would by people who do not have 1-2-1 ingrained in them.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But I'm not trying to model reality. I'm just using the simple 1-1-1 mechanic to represent each figure's location in regard to another.

I assume by "location in regard to another" you're not concerned about distance? Because 1-1-1 does not do relative distance between battlemat features (including PCs) well at all. And, as I indicated in the OP, not only is that important to me, but it's important under 4E's own rules. (You cannot trust actual distance on the battlemat in 4E the way you can in 3.5. When it has an effect on the rules -- and for a ranger, that's almost always -- you need to count and often recount.)

As to the "rotating map" arguments. This would only matter if you actually started rotating the grid mid-combat, IMO.

It also matters in cases, e.g., in which an encounter area includes rooms on the diagonal. There can easily be cases in 4E where an ostensibly 25' square room literally cannot fit where it should be able to fit, because it's drawn on the diagonal.

I also find it odd that whether or not a Burst 2 effect fills a 5x5 room depends on whether that room is drawn on the diagonal. If it's not, the burst reachs wall-to-wall. If it is, the burst covers exactly half the area. In other words, a 5x5 room in 4E that's drawn on the diagonal is literally twice as large on the battlemat as a 5x5 room that's drawn on the straights.

That freaks me out.

 

[nightwyrm]

Is 1-1-1-1 less realistic? Maybe.

Is it easier to use? Yes.

Does it bother me? No more than the 3.5 rule that I have to center a burst or start a cone on a grid corner rather than on a grid space.

 

[Herschel]

Jeff, as a skirmish player I'm surprised it bugs you that much. In the skirmish game it bugged me to no end when the change first hit, but even I grew to kind of like it then. 1-2-1-2 is mathematically more realistic, but had issues too, especially in terrain. With all the movement and mobility available in 4E, I've found the 1-1-1-1 mechanic just makes good mechanical sense, even if not great geometric.