Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Diagonal wonkiness scenarios
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 4105538" data-attributes="member: 29014"><p>I understand the circle abstraction that you are using. It happens to occasionally make the 4e stuff seem to work out if you use it.</p><p></p><p>You have to use the circle abstraction to get it to work for the race scenario, but the fact that it works there doesn't mean that it actually corrects for all 4e geometry problems (edit: I call them problems, but they aren't problems for everyone, and indeed, the HEad-in-the-Sand argument of just ignoring them will work fine for many people. Perhaps you would prefer to call them 'idiosyncrasies'. What I'm really saying is that just calling the squares a radial circle sweeping out from the origin is insufficient as a topological correction)--I believe that the only way to completely correct for it is to consider the world to be on a hyperbolic surface rather than a flat surface (though I haven't tested whether that will fix everything yet). For example, the circle abstraction fails to fix the following race, no matter what you do:</p><p></p><p>The PCs go straight forward some distance r (r being the radius of our circle we're sweeping out from the origin) to a goal. Let's say the NPCs have a faster move speed, so they get a handicap--they have to run a distance r/2 in a 45 degree angle away from the goal, then turn directly towards the goal and run the remainder of the distance. The NPC will always win, even though the PC is running in a straight line and the NPC isn't. No abstraction will fix the fact that there are a variety of equidistant paths from Point A to Point B.</p><p></p><p>But since arguing topology isn't really fun for most people, let's assume that the circle somehow did work. At that point, we're left with:</p><p></p><p> and </p><p></p><p>The key misconception you have (again, assuming that the circle heuristic always worked) is again a failure to be generous in understanding how other people think differently from you. For you, the circle idea is so ingrained as being okay that you couldn't possibly see how that could <em>be</em> an aesthetics issue in and of itself, perhaps even <em>the</em> aesthetics issue. Instead, you were forced to leap to the conclusion that I didn't understand the circle heuristic, etc. It's not that I don't know--it's that in full knowledge of everything you know (but with different tastes, my opinion is still not yours.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But people think differently, all depending on perspective and frame of reference. You see me jumping through hoops, whereas in my frame of reference, I'm standing still and you're jumping through hoops. I totally believe you that you see yourself as standing still because I know that these things work. And anyway, we're both jumping through hoops in some third frame of reference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rystil Arden, post: 4105538, member: 29014"] I understand the circle abstraction that you are using. It happens to occasionally make the 4e stuff seem to work out if you use it. You have to use the circle abstraction to get it to work for the race scenario, but the fact that it works there doesn't mean that it actually corrects for all 4e geometry problems (edit: I call them problems, but they aren't problems for everyone, and indeed, the HEad-in-the-Sand argument of just ignoring them will work fine for many people. Perhaps you would prefer to call them 'idiosyncrasies'. What I'm really saying is that just calling the squares a radial circle sweeping out from the origin is insufficient as a topological correction)--I believe that the only way to completely correct for it is to consider the world to be on a hyperbolic surface rather than a flat surface (though I haven't tested whether that will fix everything yet). For example, the circle abstraction fails to fix the following race, no matter what you do: The PCs go straight forward some distance r (r being the radius of our circle we're sweeping out from the origin) to a goal. Let's say the NPCs have a faster move speed, so they get a handicap--they have to run a distance r/2 in a 45 degree angle away from the goal, then turn directly towards the goal and run the remainder of the distance. The NPC will always win, even though the PC is running in a straight line and the NPC isn't. No abstraction will fix the fact that there are a variety of equidistant paths from Point A to Point B. But since arguing topology isn't really fun for most people, let's assume that the circle somehow did work. At that point, we're left with: and The key misconception you have (again, assuming that the circle heuristic always worked) is again a failure to be generous in understanding how other people think differently from you. For you, the circle idea is so ingrained as being okay that you couldn't possibly see how that could [i]be[/I] an aesthetics issue in and of itself, perhaps even [i]the[/i] aesthetics issue. Instead, you were forced to leap to the conclusion that I didn't understand the circle heuristic, etc. It's not that I don't know--it's that in full knowledge of everything you know (but with different tastes, my opinion is still not yours. But people think differently, all depending on perspective and frame of reference. You see me jumping through hoops, whereas in my frame of reference, I'm standing still and you're jumping through hoops. I totally believe you that you see yourself as standing still because I know that these things work. And anyway, we're both jumping through hoops in some third frame of reference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Diagonal wonkiness scenarios
Top