Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[KarinsDad]

You say this like it's a positive thing.

It is for most of my group. The moment they heard about Firecubes, they started ragging on them.

We have a more traditional group that tends to like the concept of Fireballs and other sacred cows. Go figure.

This is because you are not a statistician.

Maybe. I suspect that it is something more fundamental though, just because it happens so often.

 

[Mistwell]

Wow this is the most succinct explanation for what's wrong with society that I've ever seen.

I agree. It used to be considered a virtue to believe it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.

 

[Ourph]

When the PCs and NPCs negotiate the terms of the race in character, it would be ridiculous for any side to agree to the terms of a race where the other side is racing 1000 feet and their side is racing 1414 feet unless you've formalised into the know rules of your world's physics (such that all characters inherently know this in-character) that movement on diagonals is actually 1.414 times faster.

You're thinking of this the wrong way. Of course it's ridiculous for one side of a race to agree to run a different distance than the other. But that's not what's happening when you abstract the race onto the battlemat. If the participants agree to run 100ft then, by the 4e rules, the people running NSEW all run 20 squares (because 1sq=5ft) and the people running diagonals all run 20 squares (and because 1sq=5ft on the abstract representation of the imaginary world depicted by the battlemat, these people ALSO run exactly 100ft).

There is no contradiction here and the characters in the imaginary world aren't required to think in squares at all. The characters can negotiate the distance of the race in farthings for all the rules care, as long as the DM does the conversion between farthings and squares when he's transferring the action to the battlemat. The only reason your example doesn't work is because you keep insisting that the 1-1-1 rule takes place in a system that recognizes that the distance between opposite corners of a square is different than the distance between opposite sides. 4e's abstraction doesn't recognize this. To the 4e movement system, the distance from any point on a square to the point on the opposite side is always exactly 5ft.

Stop thinking that the battlemat is supposed to be an accurate depiction of real world topology and it will make more sense. The battlemat is a convenient abstraction, nothing more. The 1-1-1 diagonal movement rules are just an extension of that convenient abstraction.

 

[Nom]

How about this one--four PCs and four NPCs are in a race. They start at the same place, but each has a different goal, each 1000 feet from the starting place. The goals are small poles planted into the ground. The PCs' goals are due north, east, south, and west. The NPCs' goals are planted northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest. There are also traps and obstacles along the way, so you run this challenge on the battlemap. If all the PCs and NPCs have a speed of 30 feet (6 squares), then the PCs have to spend 34 move actions to get to their goals, whereas the NPCs spend only 24 move actions because they get to move over 42 feet with each of their 6 square moves.

Of course, if it were 3.5 the NPCs would move only 5.66 squares (28.3 feet) with each 30 ft move, and thus would take 36 move actions to cover the distance.

Your point is?

 

[hong]

Stop thinking that the battlemat is supposed to be an accurate depiction of real world topology and it will make more sense. The battlemat is a convenient abstraction, nothing more. The 1-1-1 diagonal movement rules are just an extension of that convenient abstraction.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Ourph?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Wow this is the most succinct explanation for what's wrong with society that I've ever seen.

:shrugs: Yeah, quoting stuff out of context is fun (feel free, for instance, to quote the preceding statement out of context too. Yay ). The face remains, you can't change someone's personal preferences just by telling them their personal preference is wrong. I know that, and that's why I'm not trying to tell anyone else to change their preferences either. Especially on the internet, the best you can do is try to convince people of the truth or falsity of something logically required (and even then, it raely works). Once you reach a point where everyone agrees completely on the full set of logical implications of the issue and they still both disagree on the issue with full knowledge of the implications, you aren't going to do much good past that.

 

[Nom]

I'll also note that if a flag were placed 198 squares north and 33 squares west (1003.65 ft.) that it could be reached in 33 moves using either 3.5 or 4E metrics, which is less than the 34 required on an orthogonal.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The only reason your example doesn't work is because you keep insisting that the 1-1-1 rule takes place in a system that recognizes that the distance between opposite corners of a square is different than the distance between opposite sides.

Well, you have to pick between a universe where a square's diagonal is equal to the length of a side, or one where you can physically move faster when on the diagonal. Both are sufficient choices to make it work. Neither are one that I want.

Stop thinking. The 1-1-1 diagonal movement rules are just an extension of that convenient abstraction.

Actually, 'Stop Thinking' is basically the best argument for the 1-1-1-1-1 rule to me--effectively, you just ignore the implications. As I stated earlier, this head-in-the-sand argument is actually sufficient for me to play with the rule, but that doesn't make it optimal for me. For me, this isn't a 'convenient abstraction', and for me, 1-2-1-2-1 presented no annoyance, difficulty, slow-down, or any other negative impact. If you're strongly 1-1-1-1-1 and you'd like to imagine the way I think about 1-1-1-1-1, just think about how you feel about 1-2-1-2-1. That's how I feel about 1-1-1-1-1.

I think many disagreements we humans have are due to a failure in our ability to imagine just how different other people think than we do. I'm trying to consider that. I'm happy for the people who want to use 1-1-1-1-1 that they have a rule they want. I'm even happier if it improves their game. That's great! I'm a bit befuddled that people can't just be fine with the fact that not using it improves my game and that their arguments won't change whether or not it does.

 

[HatWearingFool]

:shrugs: Yeah, quoting stuff out of context is fun (feel free, for instance, to quote the preceding statement out of context too. Yay ). The face remains, you can't change someone's personal preferences just by telling them their personal preference is wrong. I know that, and that's why I'm not trying to tell anyone else to change their preferences either. Especially on the internet, the best you can do is try to convince people of the truth or falsity of something logically required (and even then, it raely works). Once you reach a point where everyone agrees completely on the full set of logical implications of the issue and they still both disagree on the issue with full knowledge of the implications, you aren't going to do much good past that.

Sorry if my earlier statement came across as an attack. It wasn't meant that way at all. But that one line seriously captured the essence of what I see as a growing problem with society in general. And I intend to use in future conversations with people.

I understand the point you are trying to get across, I just thought it was a really neat quote.

 

[hong]

Actually, 'Stop Thinking' is basically the best argument for the 1-1-1-1-1 rule to me--effectively, you just ignore the implications. As I stated earlier, this head-in-the-sand argument is actually sufficient for me to play with the rule, but that doesn't make it optimal for me.

See, people, I know how to argue with MIT graduates.