Diagonal Measuring

[Mallus]

No. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's an approximation used for convenience.

I need accurate diagonal distances on the battle grid as much as I need every map to be globe.

 

[the Jester]

Is it "necessary"? Absolutely not.

Does it strain some peoples' credulity to have diagonals come out the same as straight squares? Absolutely.

 

[jedavis]

Not to echo previous sentiments, but moving diagonally at no extra cost feels to me like some of the exploits in older video games where you could increase your speed by a factor of sqrt(2) by turning 45 degrees away from where you want to go, then holding down both "strafe" and "move forward" - it says to me "Something is wrong in the way this simulated world works, on a fundamental level."

And yeah, hexes are problematic for buildings / interiors. Haven't played ungridded before... might have to try it.

 

[Morrus]

To me, it honestly doesn't matter. Squares, hexes, diagonals/not. I guess I tend towards whatever is easier or more convenient these days, and less subject to vaguaries or interpretation. I guess that as long as everyone is on the same page, it works however you choose to do it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not only do I use 1-1-1 in 4E as it's set up to do... I used it in 3E as well (the 1-2-1 rule be damned). I never played miniature wargames, so my brain is not already hardwired to think in terms of more precise distance measurements, and I want simplicity over realism almost every single time.

So long as the PCs and the monsters use the same rules, what those rules are (and how 'realistic' they are) is of no concern to me.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For me by myself, I don't care. I can move quite happily between no grid (for a system that seems to require it) to eyeballing it, to tape measure, to any grid system that more or less works. In my mind, no matter what we are using, it is all approximate anyway. So any vagaries of the system don't bother me.

What does bother me is playing with people that get too focused on some aspect of the system, to the extent that it slows down play. If I were playing with people that were so bothered by the 1-1-1-1 that they felt the need to take advantage of the edge cases, I'd rather use 1-2-1-2--or even something more exact. OTOH, my current group is mostly not tactical, and likely to completely lose the thread of what they were trying to do, when moving 1-2-1-2. So I'm quite happy with 1-1-1-1 for them.

I'm starting to get them to the "eyeball it" stage, except when it really matters. That helps a lot, and is my preferred play style. "Hey, I can move 40 feet. For anything that easily eyeballs below that--I'm there!"

 

[El Mahdi]

I simply cut measured lengths of ribbon for each player based on their speed - usually 5 or 6 inches long. This solves the problem of non-straight movement also. Whichever square the ribbon ends in is where the character moves to. You can use ribbon for area effects also. Place one end of the ribbon at the center of the effect. Any square the ribbon reaches is affected.

 

[aurance]

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, as it doesn't get in the way of my immersion.

However I acknowledge that what promotes immersion is subjective to a large degree, so I wouldn't say one method is superior to the other.

 

[OnlineDM]

Fascinating thread! It's amazing to see an issue that divides the posters so evenly.

This seems to be a "simulationism" versus "gamism" issue. 4e with its 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement is better from a "game" perspective; earlier editions and Pathfinder with 1-2-1-2 movement are better from a "simulation" perspective.

Personally, I care more about the game in this instance, so I'm fine with 1-1-1-1 and a world where pi=4 with square circles.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's only as important as movement/relative speed is to your game.

I just find it amusing that such intricate carefully (lawyerese) worded rules systems would use something so approximate and handwavy in one aspect of tactical play and be so precise in others.