Diagonal wonkiness scenarios

[hong]

Everything I see on the grid is an abstraction. An abstraction serves a purpose. When it no longer serves that purpose, it's not a good abstraction.

For me, and many others, a map and grid is a way to communicate what's going on in the world. There are certain simplifications made, such as quantizing movement into grid points. But for the most part, people have a general idea of how far things are from one another just by looking down.

The 1-1-1-1 thing means that the expectations people have from living in the real world are wrong in many cases. For short distances, single steps and so on? No big deal. But when circles become squares and similar effects crop up, the map becomes distanced from the world.

Four people in a circle shouldn't be equidistant from one another in anything like the real world.

Let go of the aether, d00d. Let it go.

 

[Will]

I'm not the one postulating theories of spacetime at odds with reality.

 

[KarinsDad]

If in 6 months time said player is still making the same mistake, then you can talk about the rule being silly and non-intuitive. Until then, it's a matter of unlearning tedious and unnecessary 3E rules.

Nonsense.

Hexes are intuitive. Offset squares are intuitive. The reason is that the difference between real distance and perceived distance is slight.

Square grids with a 1 1 1 rule are not intuitive. It's not a matter of unlearning stuff, it's a matter of the game world physics being different than real world ones to the point that things seem screwy. Easy for smart people like yourself, more difficult for some others.

Things such as a row of caltrops in a PC's way being easily avoided by moving around them and still going the max distance as if the PC ran straight over them. That's obviously non-intuitive and just because 4E players will be trained to accept such silliness over years of playing the game does not make it any less silly.


As a 3E example, Attacks of Opportunity. In 3E, a PC can do an AoO in any direction at any time, regardless of which weapon he is using. From a 2E standpoint (and even a realism standpoint), that's silly. It takes time to swing a halberd from the NPC "in front" of the PC to the NPC moving up behind the PC and doing so does not let down the guard of the PC doing it.

But, this drove one of the players in my game nuts to the point that he stopped playing 3E.

It jarred him so much to have such a nonsensical rule in the game system that he quit.


As the game system adds more and more of these types of non-elegant simple solutions into it, the game becomes more and more problematic. If taken far enough, many DMs just add in house rules to avoid the ones that bug them the most.

But just because an entire gaming community is Pavlo Dog trained to accept such things does not mean that some of these rules are not silly and not non-intuitive. It means that once a rule is written, no matter how bad, it becomes part of the game system (e.g. although many DMs house ruled Dodge, many did not and it was still a pain in butt mechanic and part of the core game system).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Clue was 2-2-2-2.

But the board game/computer game thoughts are good ones. If 1-1-1-1 bothers your immersion that much, but you want the benefits of the rule, simply orient your battlemat so that it is a diamond instead of a square (relative to your players, and preferably relative to the table it is on).

This is what Civ 1 did. They did it because it tended to change people's perceptions of the world. (That is, the wonkiness was still there, but if you wanted to just think of it as a grid plopped down, it was easier.) They only dropped it in the later versions because the user interface for movement confused some players.

I make it 50/50 that some wise guy will come up with a diamond shaped battle mat (rotate the grid on the same square mat), and make a few sales to 4E players.

 

[hong]

Nonsense.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Hexes are intuitive. Offset squares are intuitive. The reason is that the difference between real distance and perceived distance is slight.

Square grids with a 1-1-1 rule are perfectly intuitive, once you've used them for a while. "A while", in this case, meaning a couple of sessions.

Square grids with a 1 1 1 rule are not intuitive.

Yes, they are.

It's not a matter of unlearning stuff, it's a matter of the game world physics being different than real world ones to the point that things seem screwy. Easy for smart people like yourself, more difficult for some others.

Nonsense. Stupid people like myself appreciate 1-1-1 because it makes mathematics unnecessary. Mathematics is hard. You can trust me, I'm a statistician.

Things such as a row of caltrops in a PC's way being easily avoided by moving around them and still going the max distance as if the PC ran straight over them.

Wait, someone uses caltrops?

That's obviously non-intuitive and just because 4E players will be trained to accept such silliness over years of playing the game does not make it any less silly.

Cognitive dissonance works wonders, given enough time. Just look at the great gleaming edifice of rationalisations surrounding hit points and AC.

As a 3E example, Attacks of Opportunity. In 3E, a PC can do an AoO in any direction at any time, regardless of which weapon he is using. From a 2E standpoint (and even a realism standpoint), that's silly. It takes time to swing a halberd from the NPC "in front" of the PC to the NPC moving up behind the PC and doing so does not let down the guard of the PC doing it.

But, this drove one of the players in my game nuts to the point that he stopped playing 3E.

Your ex-player's problem is nobody's problem except his.

It jarred him so much to have such a nonsensical rule in the game system that he quit.

Your ex-player clearly needs some of this.

As the game system adds more and more of these types of non-elegant simple solutions into it, the game becomes more and more problematic. If taken far enough, many DMs just add in house rules to avoid the ones that bug them the most.

Very probably. Your point being...?

But just because an entire gaming community is Pavlo Dog trained to accept such things does not mean that some of these rules are not silly and not non-intuitive.

If the entire community has been trained to accept such things, then they become non-silly and intuitive, by definition.

It means that once a rule is written, no matter how bad, it becomes part of the game system

Exactly.

(e.g. although many DMs house ruled Dodge, many did not and it was still a pain in butt mechanic and part of the core game system).

Which has nothing to do with this argument.

 

[Campbell]

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.

That's one way to look at it. I don't think it's the best way. An alternate interpretation is that characters still only perceive their world in feet and that the game rules provide abstractions so that players can meaningfully interact with the game world through their characters.

If we accept that game rules define reality we must also accept

• That no human can run any faster than any other human.
• That it is impossible to move at any angle that isn't a multiple of 45 degrees.
• That time stands still for other characters while a character takes his turn (barring any use of opportunity, immediate, and free actions).
• Characters using 'Encounter' as a unit of time.
• That characters never get tired or winded in a way that isn't reflected in the game rules.
• That people move only in 5 foot increments.
• Armor protecting against all types of weapons equally.
• An awareness of things like Action Points from an in-character perspective.

I think this basically takes us straight to the train to Loonyville. If we wish to retain our sanity it is best to either not think too hard about these abstractions or use abstractions that leak less often. The effect of trying to use game rules as the physics of the game world tends to lead to either a narrative that is so far from human experience it makes our heads hurt (if we bend the game setting for the sake of the rules) or a rules system that is entirely too complex to adjudicate (if we bend the rules for the game setting's sake).

Of course if we accept that the game rules are meant to be used as an abstract model instead of a system of physics we can begin to discuss which abstractions are best for the purpose of the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Stupid people like myself appreciate 1-1-1 because it makes mathematics unnecessary.

So do offset squares or hexes. But, they do not result in firecubes.

You can trust me, I'm a statistician.

Well, you know what they say about statistics.

And, I've learned years ago to trust very little about what you post. We almost never see eye to eye.

 

[hong]

So do offset squares or hexes.

Did I ever say anything about offset squares or hexes?

But, they do not result in firecubes.

You say this like it's a positive thing.

Well, you know what they say about statistics.

And, I've learned years ago to trust very little about what you post. We almost never see eye to eye.

This is because you are not a statistician.

 

[Mistwell]

You won't be able to convince me otherwise because it's my opinion.

I just had to point out this soon-to-be classic statement. I think I may need to make it a sig somewhere.

 

[HatWearingFool]

You won't be able to convince me otherwise because it's my opinion.

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