6 players, 5 hours, 4th edition

[Ipissimus]

That 4E might be unfriendly to, not new, but temporary players, is an issue I hadn't considered.

Always been a problem, but I'm ingraining these words into my brain now: "When in doubt, use an at-will power."

 

[helium3]

Human? Yes. Arbitrary? In my opinion, Imperial measurements aren't arbitrary, but metric ones are, which is why they're hard to visualize.

<snip>

I can't believe I just read this. I've NEVER heard anyone defend the Imperial measurements with anything beyond . . . well . . . I've simply NEVER heard them defended.

Mostly they just described as an anachronism that must be tolerated simply because some folk resist any change of any sort.

Here's a little test of your theory.

Dig up some texts on really ancient China. Like Bronze Age. Find out what their measurement system was. Is it anything like the Imperial System? If your theory is correct, it should be, since it's innately based on what's "natural" for people.

 

[Celebrim]

I can't believe I just read this. I've NEVER heard anyone defend the Imperial measurements with anything beyond . . . well . . . I've simply NEVER heard them defended.

I feel compelled to point out that this is far from the same as them not being defensible.

It's sort of like saying, "I don't see how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

1) The justifications for the metric system are primarily political. For example, it was adopted in France as part of the French revolution, then rejected as revolutionary zeal when revolutionary zeal became unfashionable, brought back when it came back into fashion, and so forth. Arguably, its still all about politics.
2) The more industrialized your country is, the heavier the economic burden there is to adopting the metric system because all your existing machines must then be replaced. It's very cheap to adopt the system if you are not particularly industrialized. Much more expensive if you are say the UK or the USA, which is not coincidently were most of the oposition came.
3) The longer into the industrial revolution you get, the more expensive the economic burden is in switching. Early adopters can interchange metric and English parts because of the generally high tolerances. Late adopters cannot because the machines requires exacting dimensions. I think its pretty safe to say that by the 1950's certainly, as a practical matter, it was impossible for the USA to change. The only areas where it seems to work are products introduced after that time, say plastic soda bottles.
4) The larger your internal economy, the less need you have to change. You can always keep selling to yourself. This is why the USA wasn't an early adopter. Similarly, the larger your internal monoculture, the less need you have to change because pretty much everyone is already using the same standard. Contrast this with France when they adopted it, where there were multiple regional variations on the weight of a 'pound'.
5) It's worth noting that metric measurements only were adopted where they fit peoples existing ideas somewhat. The metric hour didn't prove to be much of a hit.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That being the case it isn't any more "natural" or easier to use then any other common method of measuring.

Since it all comes down to what your used too.

Thus why I think the square be a easy thing to alter into what your used too. Since a square doesn't mean a certain length so you can establish it to be a certain length in whatever measurement you wish.

Canada actually didn't change till the 1960's so developed countries can switch later on. But now we are heading away from the game and the use of squares and into political/socio-economic area.

 

[hong]

The only question left to consider is whether squares have diagonals. No, wait, that's not right.

The only question left to consider is whether squares have breasts.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The only question left to consider is whether squares have breasts.

No. But according to Huey Lewis and the News, they do have hips.

 

[Dragonblade]

No. But according to Huey Lewis and the News, they do have hips.

*groans*

 

[Delta]

I can't believe I just read this. I've NEVER heard anyone defend the Imperial measurements with anything beyond . . . well . . . I've simply NEVER heard them defended.

Mostly they just described as an anachronism that must be tolerated simply because some folk resist any change of any sort.

Here's a little test of your theory.

Dig up some texts on really ancient China. Like Bronze Age. Find out what their measurement system was. Is it anything like the Imperial System? If your theory is correct, it should be, since it's innately based on what's "natural" for people.

Here is, in fact, the beginning of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "The ancient Chinese measurement system":
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-251620/measurement-system

Completely separated from the Mediterranean-European history of metrology is that of ancient China; yet the Chinese system exhibits all the principal characteristics of the Western. It employed parts of the body as a source of units—for example, the distance from the pulse to the base of the thumb...

 

[FriendlyFiend]

I feel compelled to point out that this is far from the same as them not being defensible.

It's sort of like saying, "I don't see how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

1) The justifications for the metric system are primarily political. For example, it was adopted in France as part of the French revolution, then rejected as revolutionary zeal when revolutionary zeal became unfashionable, brought back when it came back into fashion, and so forth. Arguably, its still all about politics.
2) The more industrialized your country is, the heavier the economic burden there is to adopting the metric system because all your existing machines must then be replaced. It's very cheap to adopt the system if you are not particularly industrialized. Much more expensive if you are say the UK or the USA, which is not coincidently were most of the oposition came.
3) The longer into the industrial revolution you get, the more expensive the economic burden is in switching. Early adopters can interchange metric and English parts because of the generally high tolerances. Late adopters cannot because the machines requires exacting dimensions. I think its pretty safe to say that by the 1950's certainly, as a practical matter, it was impossible for the USA to change. The only areas where it seems to work are products introduced after that time, say plastic soda bottles.
4) The larger your internal economy, the less need you have to change. You can always keep selling to yourself. This is why the USA wasn't an early adopter. Similarly, the larger your internal monoculture, the less need you have to change because pretty much everyone is already using the same standard. Contrast this with France when they adopted it, where there were multiple regional variations on the weight of a 'pound'.
5) It's worth noting that metric measurements only were adopted where they fit peoples existing ideas somewhat. The metric hour didn't prove to be much of a hit.

While we're being sidetracked - I should just point out that, apart from measuring our beer in pints and our road distances in miles (both cases where the question of tolerances is actually pretty much irrelevant), the UK is pretty much completely metric these days. I find there's a weird cut off age somewhere in the 20s - I describe someone as 6'2", the under 25s say 1m 80-whatever. Maybe we should all switch to "squares"

 

[Oldtimer]

I feel compelled to point out that this is far from the same as them not being defensible.

It's sort of like saying, "I don't see how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

1) The justifications for the metric system are primarily political. For example, it was adopted in France as part of the French revolution, then rejected as revolutionary zeal when revolutionary zeal became unfashionable, brought back when it came back into fashion, and so forth. Arguably, its still all about politics.
2) The more industrialized your country is, the heavier the economic burden there is to adopting the metric system because all your existing machines must then be replaced. It's very cheap to adopt the system if you are not particularly industrialized. Much more expensive if you are say the UK or the USA, which is not coincidently were most of the oposition came.
3) The longer into the industrial revolution you get, the more expensive the economic burden is in switching. Early adopters can interchange metric and English parts because of the generally high tolerances. Late adopters cannot because the machines requires exacting dimensions. I think its pretty safe to say that by the 1950's certainly, as a practical matter, it was impossible for the USA to change. The only areas where it seems to work are products introduced after that time, say plastic soda bottles.
4) The larger your internal economy, the less need you have to change. You can always keep selling to yourself. This is why the USA wasn't an early adopter. Similarly, the larger your internal monoculture, the less need you have to change because pretty much everyone is already using the same standard. Contrast this with France when they adopted it, where there were multiple regional variations on the weight of a 'pound'.
5) It's worth noting that metric measurements only were adopted where they fit peoples existing ideas somewhat. The metric hour didn't prove to be much of a hit.

I just want to point out that the USA was one of the signatories of the Convention du Mètre (Meter Convention or Treaty of the Meter) of 1875, so in that respect they were an early adopter - in theory... :\