Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[hong]

When the PCs and NPCs negotiate the terms of the race in character,

Why is the DM putting such a race into the game?

 

[frankthedm]

Now? Everything I see on the grid is a lie.

Agreed

 

[Rystil Arden]

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.

Actually, they really don't, if that is your problem in the first place

I just wanted to get you to agree that all characters in the world would have to know that they live in a world where movement on an invisible (but testable by a character in the world by running and seeing if you go 1.414 times as fast) diagonal axis makes you go faster. You'd get scenarios like "It's 1200 miles to Country Y--I don't think we can make it in time. It'll take 2 months." "No, if we go around here like this and take a different trajectory, we can hit the diagonal axis and move 1.414 times of fast, so we can make it in 1.414 months."

Once we've got to the point where we both agree that this is an entirely necessary requirement of using the 1-1-1-1 rules, that's as far as I can take you with logic. After that, it all comes down to taste.

I respect the fact that you're cool with the implications. I would hope you can respect the opinion of those who think that the cost of such weirdness is far more profound than the cost of 1-2-1-2-1 to those I've played with (because to everyone I've ever played with, the latter was a null cost). For someone whose group had problems with 1-2-1-2-1, the 1-1-1-1-1 might be a great idea. Awesome! I'm not here to convince you not to use it, actually--I respect that choice. The great thing is that it will be absurdly easy to houserule 1-1-1-1-1 away, seemingly with no adverse consequences elsewhere, if I convert to 4e (I'm one of those fence-sitters). I'm actually more-or-less done if you agree with me on the necessity of the in-game knowledge of diagonal speed-up. I can't see why so many people on my side (the 1-2-1-2-1 side) feel the need to proselytise so much and moan about it (oh, wait, right, it's the internet )

 

[Rystil Arden]

Why is the DM putting such a race into the game?

Because the title of this thread was 'Diagonal Wonkiness Scenario' and this was the most plausible scenario (i.e. I've done something very similar before in older editions where it wasn't weirded by diagonals so it was fair for both sides) that necessarily required the exposure of diagonal wonkiness

I've been very good--I've had this scenario cooked up for months, but I promised myself I wouldn't post it unless there was a thread with more-or-less the exact same title as this one soliciting diagonal wonkiness scenarios.

 

[Nytmare]

Now? Everything I see on the grid is a lie.

No, everything you see on the grid is an abstraction. A square is no longer 5' wide, a round is no longer 6 seconds long, and all human beings don't all walk at exactly 3.41 miles per hour.

Things move around on the grid relative to each other, not relative to some cosmic ruler, timepiece, or speedometer.


[EDIT] That goes double for you, Rystil Arden.

 

[HeinorNY]

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

He wasn't gaming anything, he just tried to stay as far away from the entrance of the corridor as he could.
Intuitively, the place he choosed to stay was farther than staying in the wall directly opposed to the entrance.

 

[hong]

He wasn't gaming anything, he just tried to stay as far away from the entrance of the corridor as he could.

No, if he was trying to stay as far away as he could, he would have run out of the room. He decided to stay, thinking the monster would be too slow to reach him before he got a turn.

Intuitively, the place he choosed to stay was farther than staying in the wall directly opposed to the entrance.

And the monster caught him. Oh well.

 

[baberg]

AI just wanted to get you to agree that all characters in the world would have to know that they live in a world where movement on an invisible (but testable by a character in the world by running and seeing if you go 1.414 times as fast) diagonal axis makes you go faster. You'd get scenarios like "It's 1200 miles to Country Y--I don't think we can make it in time. It'll take 2 months." "No, if we go around here like this and take a different trajectory, we can hit the diagonal axis and move 1.414 times of fast, so we can make it in 1.414 months."

You're still thinking in feet. Don't. Characters in 4th Edition D&D don't think, measure, or calculate in feet. They think, measure, and calculate in squares. They wouldn't say "Town X is 1200 miles away" they would say "Town X is 7000 squares away" (yes, I know the math is off, work with me here).

Spell effects are measured in squares, not feet. Movement rates are in squares, not feet. "How big is this house?" "Oh, it's 18 square squares".

It's counterintuitive to our everyday experience with linear distance, yes. But it is (I hope) internally consistent to the game world that WotC is creating. The characters in-world knowledge is not based on feet but on squares.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You'd get scenarios like "It's 1267200 squares to Country Y--I don't think we can make it in time. It'll take 2 months."

Sorted.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

What is there to think about? You just make the dungeon and throw people into it. There is no more "DM thought" that needs to go into the design beyond "thing #1 is x away from thing #2." You can say that x is some number of feet, or you can say that it's some number of squares, where are the mental gymnastics involved in that?

I was responding to a poster who said that the DM could do this. I was not claiming that a DM actually had to do it.