Diagonals revisited

[Steely Dan]

So 4e combat is a combat exercise that involves more shoving than actually attacking...

I don't know; I haven't played 4th Ed yet.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Aw, man, is this yet another rule we completely screwed up around our table? Bloody oath. I really gotta wonder about my reading skills back then. sigh. :\

I don't think it's your reading skills, I think it is the way the books were written. I read over a friend's 1E DMG yesterday, and happened upon the chapter about illnesses and diseases and stuff. Back then, I found it a big curiosity that Gygax had taken the time to deal with one of the less pleasant aspects of medieval life, and created some tables for it. What I didn't remember was that the DM was supposed to check for a random disease/parasitary infection ONCE PER GAME MONTH!. I read it a few times, looked at my friend, and went "Man, if you really want to screw with your players, you use this!". Afterwards, we speculated how much GP a character would spend on keeping himself healthy all the time under those rules, with Cure Disease spells, potions, Periapts of Health, etc.

 

[Steely Dan]

I don't think it's your reading skills, I think it is the way the books were written. I read over a friend's 1E DMG yesterday, and happened upon the chapter about illnesses and diseases and stuff.

As I believe one of the designers said, I too find something new in the 1st Ed DMG every time I crack it open…and this has been going on for over 20 years.

Just the other night I was reading through some of my 1st Ed goodies and realized how much a lot of 3rd Ed was basically a cut & paste form previous editions.

…1st Ed had killer vibe, though.

 

[Hussar]

What I don't understand is : Even with more and more GMs who use laptops as GM screen _and_ as "rule book collection", with the ongoing use of DDI for the game , in short with more and more computing power on the game table easy to use,

WHY are the rules going "structurally" easier? Noone should today bother about "computing" exact, and "realistic" distant rules and based on that "realistic" attack and combat actions, right?

So, where is the need for such "easy" rules?


For all who want to answer me with , that they don't have a computer with them at their table:
Can you, please, call someone ?

Well, as someone who's played on a computer for the past 5 years, I can say that no amount of computing power would make a whit of difference here. It's going to be the players who count squares, not your computer. Unless, of course, you put in some sort of mechanic into the VTT that would count squares for you. Not a bad idea, but, very difficult to implement.

I suggest you try programs like OpenRPG before making these kinds of claims. VTT's really can't handle what you are trying to do.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Somewhat related aside...

The weird 1" stuff is very easy understand, when you look at it from the right POV.

All editions of D&D are games wrapped up in a pretentious veneer of simulationism. That is not really a criticism of D&D or Gygax, the historical miniatures games on whose shoulders Gary stood had the same fundamental issue under the covers.

Years ago, I used to be greatly annoyed about all the illogical quirks that made D&D such a bad simulation of...anything. Over time I have come to recognize that most of those decisions made sense in the context of an evolving game that was trying to push the envelope. Compromises were necessary so that the rules could bend without breaking, and whether I personally like them or not there was a certain kernel of wisdom in how compromises were chosen.

Squares. Diagonals. (Or inches.) Same idea.

I personally dislike the new diagonal rule, but I expect it will serve most people well enough.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Somewhat related aside...

The weird 1" stuff is very easy understand, when you look at it from the right POV.

All editions of D&D are games wrapped up in a pretentious veneer of simulationism. That is not really a criticism of D&D or Gygax, the historical miniatures games on whose shoulders Gary stood had the same fundamental issue under the covers.

Years ago, I used to be greatly annoyed about all the illogical quirks that made D&D such a bad simulation of...anything. Over time I have come to recognize that most of those decisions made sense in the context of an evolving game that was trying to push the envelope. Compromises were necessary so that the rules could bend without breaking, and whether I personally like them or not there was a certain kernel of wisdom in how compromises were chosen.

Squares. Diagonals. (Or inches.) Same idea.

I personally dislike the new diagonal rule, but I expect it will serve most people well enough.

This I can get behind, yep. It's funny you mention this, because that was the impression I got from browsing the 1E DMG yesterday, too. Wasn't so much nostalgic as it was enlightening.
I still prefer BECMI D&D from that period, though.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

From the 4E primer handed out at D&D XP (link on EN World's front page):

9. Movement is quick and easy.
Each character has a speed listed in squares. One 1-inch square equals one five-foot square in the game world.

Oops.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, that's the Primer, not the PHB...but it correlates squares with real-world measurements. Sorry for all those who hoped that all distances would be measured in the abstract "squares" unit. Apparently, one square in the D&D world still is 5 feet to the side. Seems we do have to deal with either wonky diagonals, or diagonal speed preferences in 4E.

 

[hong]