Diagonals revisited

[Thyrwyn]

I define "immersion" as being able to get inside a character's head and see things from their point of view. My point was that the characters can't see the diagonals and have no idea that they are there. If they prevent a given player's sense of immersion, it has nothing to do with the character's perceptions.

I am sorry if I came off as insulting or condescending - that really was not my intent. I can accept that for some people, it is too much of an abstraction. "Insist" may have been too strong a word, but what you find "Logically Impossible" - I do not; what you find makes "any kind of character immersion" impossible - I do not.

 

[DSRilk]

I mean sheesh, MY wife knew it was 1.41 before I mentioned that. So the math ability/inability of spouses is not, perhaps, a good way to determine what rules work, eh?

Unfortunately, you missed my point entirely. I was trying (through a minor joke) to show that there are some people, not all of whom are young or new to the game, who find this 1/1/1/1 rule easier to understand, and easier and more enjoyable to play. My point was not that my wife is not good at math, nor to imply that you needed to express your wife's math talent, and certainly not that we should make rule decisions based on spousal opinions.

 

[jeffh]

Speaking of strawmen - rules of motion are an area to which the discipline of geometry has precious little to say. Physics on the other hand. . .

As for Logical Impossibilities - see my post here for my thoughts on that. There is no loss of immersion unless you insist upon it

It is logically, not merely physically, impossible for Pythagorus' Theorem to be false. Laws of motion have nothing to do with it, except in ways which are parasitic on things like the distance between two points, which has at least as much to do with geometry as with physics.

And I do insist that my characters, assuming they have Intelligence scores of at least 10 or so, notice glaringly obvious features of the physical world around them. I can't wrap my head around how someone could fail to do so, or expect me to play a character who failed to do so with any sense of immersion whatsoever.

I read the post you linked to. The biggest of my problems with it is - why would the admittedly many and complicated variables being abstracted away (all of which are, by the way, firmly on the physical side of my distinction) systematically favour movement in some directions (on a grid which is in the first place completely arbitrary) over movement in others?

 

[hong]

That's simply false. It's not a matter of "insisting" on it, it's a matter of how your mind works. Some people can easily ignore the illogic, others can't.

Everyone can easily ignore the illogic. It's simply a matter of will.

Neither is superior. I've read what you say, and it doesn't make any sense to me, because it's not "one character this, another character that", as you misleadingly suggest it is, it's absolutely constant and solid: you can always move faster and shoot further on a diagonal. Always.

You move the same distance and shoot the same distance on the diagonal. That's what 1-1-1 means.

 

[jeffh]

Everyone can easily ignore the illogic. It's simply a matter of will.

This is both false and insulting.

You move the same distance and shoot the same distance on the diagonal. That's what 1-1-1 means.

And it makes as much sense as telling me two and two make five.


I have a lot of respect for you, Hong, but don't presume to tell me how my mind works.

 

[hong]

This is both false and insulting.

It is true but unwelcome.

And it makes as much sense as telling me two and two make five.

Two and two makes five, plus or minus one.

 

[Ahglock]

I hereby nominate diagonal movement as the 'Tempest in a Teapot' change of 4th Edition. No effect on roleplaying, miniscule effect on combat, and easily houseruled by those who don't like it.

I kind of see it as the battle call. It is the remember the alamo rule of 4e. Its sort of a hallmark easily identifiable rule that can show how you are against the design philosophy of the creators of 4e.

I think this rule is a great example of how while i love the design goals of the 4e crew i hate the design philosophy.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Two and two makes five, plus or minus one.

Or as the people in my master's of math program used to joke, two plus two is five for very large values of two.

And all joking aside, can we relax on this?

This should not be the cause of so much consternation. If you like 1-1-1-1, great! If you like 1-2-1-2, great! In your own private games at home, play however you like. But the name-calling and hand-wringing here really needs to end.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is Fireball madness!

A 40ft cube fireball fills nearly twice the volume of a 20ft radius fireball (64,000 vs 33,500 cubic ft)

Clearly a 4e firesquare should only be about a 32ft cube!

What?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Maybe that's one of the new per encounter effects? You know...only comes into play once the battlemat is out.