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

[Nifft]

You're missing the point.

4E's error matters ... the PC actually moves farther (actual distance) than his 6 speed should allow. (Specifically, 7.21 in actual distance.)

"Actual distance"?

Unless you can show me an actual tiefling, I'm gonna stick with game distance. And the game tiefling can move six game squares.

If you want to demonstrate that 4e's "error" matters, you're going to need more than the fact that you prefer Cartesian coordinates to chess boards. You're going to have to show that Cartesian coordinates add value relative to moving on a chess board, in the context of a game with knights, kings, and castles.

"Pawned!", -- N

 

[N0Man]

What is it that you are attempting to argue?

Is anyone disputing that 1-2-1 is on average closer to mathematical reality?
I don't think so, though it is argued that this difference is overstated.

Are there angles of movement that highlight flaws in 1-1-1 ?
Absolutely, and I put them on the table from the start (45 degree angles or similar angles). In pure diagonal movement, 1-1-1 can extend range more than mathematically possible.

Are there angles of movement that highlight flaws in 1-2-1?
Absolutely. In steep angles where the number of squares moved diagonally are an even number. This can artificially limit range and causes one to be unable to reach a square that they should be able to mathematically.

If both have mathematical inaccuracy, is 1-2-1 less inaccurate than 1-1-1?
It's very possible, but it depends on how you move in a game. 1-2-1 is off a little less at small angles than 1-1-1 is off at 45 degree angles. If your movement is always in straight lines, 1-1-1 averaged being 1.0 square off on average in the examples I gave earlier. 1-2-1 averaged to being 0.5 off from the mathematical best square. A lot of real game movement isn't in straight lines. There is dodging around to avoid hazards, enemies, or other obstructions. The actual difference between the 2 is impossible to say as an absolute given so many possibilities.

What if a DM, really doesn't like 1-1-1? Will using 1-2-1 make the WotC knock on their door and cause their PHB to explode?
I highly doubt it. If it makes your group happier, then go for it.

What if a DM really wants it to be "realistic" and refuses to use 1-1-1 in their games, but some of the players in the game prefer 1-1-1 because they think it's easier and faster?
Do what you want, but it's generally a bad idea to override standard rules in favor of houserules that make the game slower, less fun, or more tedious for players when the players don't really want those houserules.


There's really not much more to it than this. Attacking 1-1-1 and trying to prove the mathematical accuracy is 1-2-1 is pointless. The answer is pretty clear, though I the degree to which it is more accurate might be debateable.

Likewise, I don't think there's a sincere argument that 1-2-1 is easier and more intuitive. Sure, it seems the pure diagonal corner case "tricks the eye" of people here not used to it, but they are also probably used to being shorted a square or two of movement also.

Really, this discussion has really broken down into us taking turns making statements like:

"I prefer 1-1-1 because I value a substantial increase in gameplay usability and speed is more important than a small and sometimes exagerated increase in mathematical inaccuracy. I also like Pepsi."

"I prefer 1-2-1 because I value a substantial increase in mathematical accuracy is more important than a small and sometimes exagerated increase gameplay usability and speed. I also like Coke."

Nobody can tell you that you should like something more than someone else, but it's pointless to take some kind stance of superiority regarding your preference. Both are reasonable choices, depending on what a group finds preferable, but there's no point in trying to bring up contrived scenarios to show that 1-1-1 has flaws, or to have a passionate dislike for it. It's just not rational.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Hey Jeff, sorry you're having such issues with enjoying 4e. As a DM I use a hex map, which I hardly consider to be a house rule at all. If the warmest attitude toward the 1-1-1 rule in your group is 'indifferent,' I see no reason to stick with it. I understand you want to try 4e as-is, but I've never heard anyone say "Man, I could/couldn't have done X with the old square grid!" Maybe it's because I'm so used to groups that play under the assumption that every campaign will have house rules, but I don't see the problem with slipping in such a minor one especially since it seems like it would do so much to increase your comfort level.

Anyway, this is how I do the hex map:

If a hex is mostly blocked by a wall, you can't use it. If it's mostly clear, you can.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I don't see how "you can never move more than THIS far" should be privileged above "you can barring being slowed or something always move THIS far if you want to," a test which the 3.X version of movement fails in the case you're describing.

I'm not quite understanding you on this one. If you can move up to a certain limit (let's say 30ft. or 6 squares), then that limit would seem to be the most important thing; priviledged above any other consideration. Wouldn't it?

"Actual distance"?

Unless you can show me an actual tiefling, I'm gonna stick with game distance. And the game tiefling can move six game squares.

That's cool if that's how you like to play. What about people that enjoy and prefer a more immersive gaming experience? Some of these prefer an accurate miniaturisation of the battlefield while others in theis regard prefer wholly to stay within the landscape of the mind. 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? And as for me, when I'm gaming, that Tiefling's as actual and real if not more so than the nose on my face.

If you want to demonstrate that 4e's "error" matters, you're going to need more than the fact that you prefer Cartesian coordinates to chess boards. You're going to have to show that Cartesian coordinates add value relative to moving on a chess board, in the context of a game with knights, kings, and castles.

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.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[malraux]

And in one of the earliest articles after 4E's diagonal movement change was announced (I believe it was a Greenbriar Chasm Dungeonworks or something like that), there's a map included that has rooms oriented diagonally to the rest of the dungeon ... at a glance.

But then you look closely, and ... waitasec, these rooms have straight squares, too!

So then you have to look closely to notice where they grafted the orientations together ... basically, in mid-corridor the squares stopped going this way and rotated 45 degrees that way./QUOTE]

As a general rule, the grid for any particular location should be drawn relative to that particular location. The hallways don't mater much for counting movement, so the grid can get fuzzy there. So any rectangular room will always be correct because that's how it'll get drawn. Sure it might be rotated 23 degrees from the absolute reference, but that's a made up reference too.

 

[Rechan]

That's cool if that's how you like to play. What about people that enjoy and prefer a more immersive gaming experience?

I expect them to be unhappy, because the system really doesn't support a simulationist mindset. It just doesn't; it's clearly gamist with some narrativism. So trying to get that from 4e is like trying to get blood from a stone. You're just going to make yourself even more frustrated.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The argument about 25'x25' rooms on the diagonals when using 1-1-1 is a strawman argument because it doesn't maintain the same aspect ratio of 5 squares along the vertical and horizontal and diagonal axes. Of course there are more squares! The diagonals (which are aligned to the grid) are way longer than 5 squares.

The other thing that someone briefly mentioned earlier but it wasn't addressed by anyone who is pro-1-2-1 is that 1-2-1 does inhibit character movement. By this, I mean that if you are moving strictly diagonally, you will end up losing out on 5' of movement. You'll have 1 more square left, but are at the point of the "2" in 1-2-1, and thus can't continue. It's ironic that the less often this comes up implies that the less useful 1-2-1 becomes (because then you're not going diagonally enough for the low fidelity of 1-1-1 to matter). So, the more you need/like 1-2-1, the more you'll screw over the characters of movement.

Finally, my suggestion for the OP's main problem is simply to be more flexible (or rather have the DM be flexible). By this I mean simply decide "who's closer", visually even. We're not wargaming with rulers here, so obviously what you intend is far more important that what you actually moved. For example, "My ranger moves towards that boulder such that so-and-so is my closest target." Who really cares if you're off by 1 square in your assessment of who's closest? No, really? Who cares?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Are there angles of movement that highlight flaws in 1-2-1?
Absolutely. In steep angles where the number of squares moved diagonally are an even number. This can artificially limit range and causes one to be unable to reach a square that they should be able to mathematically.

Here's my thoughts on this and why I'm not jiving with your analysis.

The limit of movement for a character is let's say 30ft. (or 6 squares if you prefer). The 1-2-1 system preserves that limit. So for example in the example you give with the two squares to the side and 6 squares forward, the actual distance moved would be 31.6ft.>30ft. so therefore, you can't make it fully into that square. The 1-2-1 method preserves that limit and that's why I think while it's still an approximate, it's one that supports the "reality" that the game mechanics are trying to help create.

That's the extreme case for 1-2-1. The extreme case for 1-1-1 sees an increase in speed for travelling upon the diagonal of 41%. Surely you can see how that might bother "some" players? The backwards and forwards in argument that you analogize with liking pepsi/coke is most probably apt. However, your analysis that the difference in accuracy is not that great is to my mind and logic incorrect.

When it boils down to it, it really isn't that bigger deal although it is interesting to analyse.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The argument about 25'x25' rooms on the diagonals when using 1-1-1 is a strawman argument because it doesn't maintain the same aspect ratio of 5 squares along the vertical and horizontal and diagonal axes. Of course there are more squares! The diagonals (which are aligned to the grid) are way longer than 5 squares.

I agree in actual distance the diagonals are longer but in game terms, they still only take 5 squares of movement to traverse and as such, how could they be anything but sides forming a 5 square by 5 square room? As such, I don't think it's a strawman, it is an example that explicitly shows the issues involved when trying to view a gamist construction through a simulationist lens.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The other thing that someone briefly mentioned earlier but it wasn't addressed by anyone who is pro-1-2-1 is that 1-2-1 does inhibit character movement. By this, I mean that if you are moving strictly diagonally, you will end up losing out on 5' of movement.

Could you demonstrate this? I'm not seeing it.

If I move 6 "squares" diagonally in 1-2-1 movement, I've moved 5.65 squares of actual distance. I'm losing .35 squares. 12 squares is a loss of .69 squares. In both cases, it's better to round down because six (or 12) squares is the upper limit by the Speed rules; allowing another square breaks that limit, while disallowing another square does not.

If this isn't what you mean, I'm missing what you're saying.