Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[TwinBahamut]

I've said it before in several threads, but I guess I might as well repeat myself.

I understand that 1,2,1,2 is far from ideal and deserves to be replaced, but I think 1,1,1,1 is the worst of the alternatives. I think Manhattan distance or hex grids both work a lot better and are a bit more intuitive, for various reasons.

If you've ever played any non-3D video games - Ultima, early Final Fantasy, Civilization - your brain won't explode when you switch to 1-1-1-1

Err, early Final Fantasy games did not allow diagonal movement. That is Manhattan distance, not 1,1,1,1, and is part of the reason I like the former more than the latter, actually.

 

[HeinorNY]

No, the correct tactical choice, if he really wanted to avoid a fight, would be to run out of the room. The player guessed that the monster would only reach him after he got his turn. He guessed wrong.

The player made the wrong choice because when he was 10 years old he learned the Pythagorean theorem.

 

[hong]

The player made the wrong choice because when he was 10 years old he learned the Pythagorean theorem.

The player made the wrong choice because he was gaming the wrong system.

 

[Rystil Arden]

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.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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 200 squares from the starting place.

Sorted.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

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.

There are 34 kinds of wrong with this example, but only 24 if you check on the diagonals.

 

[catsclaw]

I expected 4e movement to feel more gamist. But the opposite was true. At least for me. I think it has to do with the fact that counting squares in 4e required almost no mental effort. You just moved. Beyond counting squares, no mental effort was required. You could pretty much move on auto-pilot. As a DM, this freed up my brain and allowed me to think ahead about other tactics, it also allowed me to describe and narrate the action while moving the monsters.

I found the exact same thing, and I have a theory about it.

We're essentially imagining this world through a scrim or a thin layer of gauze--the rules of the game. Having complicated rules to track (like 1-2-1-2 movement) forces you to pay attention to the scrim, and you can't focus on the world underneath. While it seems like 1-1-1-1 movement would be more distracting, for most people it allows them to ignore the scrim for movement and the world becomes more immersive, not less.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Sorted.

-Hyp.

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.

 

[baberg]

Sorted.

-Hyp.

Exactly. Stop thinking in feet and start thinking in squares if you want things to "make sense" in the D&D 4th Edition world.

The player made the wrong choice because when he was 10 years old he learned the Pythagorean theorem.

Did the PC use up all of his Move points to get into the corner? And did the player playing the PC know that in D&D 4th Edition Move ratings are based on squares and not linear distance?

"Get as far away as I can" does not mean "run to the nearest corner".

 

[baberg]

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.

Ok, but in the D&D 4th Edition world, it is formalized into the known rules of that world's physics that movement on a diagonal is the same as movement laterally because those are the rules. All NPCs would know this as would all PCs who had read the rules (or had the rules explained to them)

Again, stop thinking in feet and start thinking in squares if you want the D&D world to "make sense". Once you change your thought that way, all these problems vanish.