Diagonals revisited

[Celebrim]

You've misdefined AddedValue(x) and Complexity(x). Since you are comparing two rules, you should use relative quantities for each:
AddedValue(x/y) = Value(x)/Value
Complexity(x/y) = Complexity(x)/Complexity

Then a rule with no improvement in value gets AddedValue = 1/1 = 1.
A rule with complexity reduced by half gets Complexity = .5/1 = .5

And the resulting NetValue = 1/.5 = 2

Ok, that's fine. You are just generating a relative net value rather than an absolute one. All I did differently was Value(x)/Complexity(x) - Value/Complexity. For the provided numbers, the net value of the change from y to x would be 1/.5 - 1/1 = +1.

Now, suppose Value = 0.

And it's possible to have a rule that is worse in AddedValue, yet better in Complexity, and is therefore better overall.

I never said otherwise.

Like 1-1-1-1 diagonals.

If for your valuation function, Value('1-1-1-1') > 0, then sure.

 

[kennew142]

True.

But equally importantly, its not easy to intuitively figure out how many 5' hexes are in a 45'x30' room without a map.

And maybe its just me, but I tend to be annoyed when the number of hexes in a room changes depending on how I orient the hexes.

Celebrim, I am happy to say that we are in 100% agreement on this issue. I have always found maps on hex mats to be visually unappealing. This is one of the reasons why.

That said, I would probably use hex mats if DDM used them. I often incorporate predrawn maps into my scenarios because I find them visually appealing (even with the annoying DDM bonus spaces - which I have to ignore). Although my wife hates hex maps more than I do, and I like to keep her happy.

 

[psionotic]

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.

 

[kennew142]

And here you do win.
I know openly admit that *for 4E* 1/1/1/1 is the correct way to go.
For the people who want their D&D to be like Descent, THIS is the edition for you.

And now that I have agreed to this truth, there is no further need for my involvement in this thread.

Ah! Today's anti-4e talking point is: 4e is less of an rpg and more of a board game.

Myself, I was hoping for: 4e is less of an rpg and more like canasta. It makes just as much sense, and has the added value of being original.

 

[Kahoots]

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 second that!

 

[kennew142]

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.

You don't understand the point at all!

The problem is that the rest of us won't be playing the way others want us to play. It isn't enough that the system can be easily house ruled. Those who play with 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement aren't really playing D&D. Neither are those who use hexes instead of squares, or those creepy Europeans with their 1.5 m squares.

For years many D&D players have had to house rule 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement because they didn't feel the need for the added complexity of 1-2-1-2 movement. [Alas! I was not among them. Now that I've tried both versions, I wish that I had been.]

 

[ruleslawyer]

Yep, I perfectly agree there. It's simply one more step towards D&D: The Boardgame, the multimedial tactical online-tabletop-dungeoncrawl battlegame.

I feel like you didn't read your sig before writing this post.

I don't really grok how 1-1-1-1 vs. 1-2-1-2 has anything to do with "dumbing down D&D" or "making D&D into a boardgame." It's a rule change that you either agree with or don't. If you agree with it, it's likely for the reasons that Reaper Steve stated so eloquently in the OP. If you don't, it's likely because you find it more realistic that diagonal movement costs more over the long run and you're concerned with corner cases in which people can "gain movement" by using diagonals.

For me, it doesn't matter. I'm seriously considering just cutting some thread to indicate 5' and 10' shifts and each PC's movement, and then using that to measure rather than squares, hexes, or what have you. It seems more "natural" and allows me to use a gaming environment that doesn't have to conform to a squares or hexes configuration.

 

[DSRilk]

It has no added value.

Here's an equation for you:

wife's inability to do quick, but basic math + 1/2/1/2 diagonals = more complexity and a slower game

complexity / 100 = % wife will stop playing

% wife will stop playing = % husband will be unhappy

This, solving for % husband will be unhappy, we find that 1/2/1/2 diagonals have a negative impact on my happiness.

Put another way, my wife gets confused and frustrated counting 1/2/1/2 movement (no comments, please) and thus getting rid of them makes my gaming experience better.

 

[Steely Dan]

Put another way, my wife gets confused and frustrated counting 1/2/1/2 movement

You're lucky you've got your wife to go that far, my wife gets a glazed over expression and far away look in her eyes whenever I start talking about anything D&D rules related.

Not that I think she should play D&D, or would want her too – she's a cheater!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I feel like you didn't read your sig before writing this post.

I don't really grok how 1-1-1-1 vs. 1-2-1-2 has anything to do with "dumbing down D&D" or "making D&D into a boardgame." It's a rule change that you either agree with or don't. If you agree with it, it's likely for the reasons that Reaper Steve stated so eloquently in the OP. If you don't, it's likely because you find it more realistic that diagonal movement costs more over the long run and you're concerned with corner cases in which people can "gain movement" by using diagonals.

On the contrary, but in order to not have to repeat the whole shebang again, I'll simply point you over to the thread Reaper Steve cited in his OP for an in-depth discussion of the topic, and maybe an idea why I don't agree with your view about the rules change, or the description of the curiosities the new rule creates as "corner cases".