D&D 4E How did 4e take simulation away from D&D?

[Bluenose]

This reminds me of a GM who ticked me off. I had a +17 Diplomacy modifier, and I rolled a 1. The GM decided I had royally offended the person I was talking to, ruining my attempt to put some negotiation into a combat game. The rest of the party chimed in with jokes of how I'd insulted the man's wife and so on.

But c'mon, a 1 on a skill check is a failure, not doomsday. It's irksome when GMs assume failure means horrible setback rather than just, y'know, failure.

You gave a wonderful speech (you always do, Mr +17 Diplomacy Guy), but the person you were talking to probably didn't like it when you called him by the wrong name. Twice.

Pythagoras, Euclid, and the real world all say you're wrong. Feel free to measure it out.

1-2-1-2. Compared to 1.4-1.4-1.4-1.4. That's if you're being strictly mathematical, and that people move entirely in straight lines.

 

[delericho]

1-2-1-2. Compared to 1.4-1.4-1.4-1.4. That's if you're being strictly mathematical, and that people move entirely in straight lines.

Well, characters do very often move in straight lines.

Look, the standard human movement rate is 7 squares. Moving on a diagonal, they should move approximately 4.9497 squares.

Using 1-2-1-2 movement, they move 5 squares. The error here is small enough to be negligible.

Using 1-1-1-1 diagonals, they move 7 squares. Here, the error is large enough to be visibly wrong.

As movement rates go up, all the errors become more and more pronounced. And 1-2-1-2 will eventually break down as an approximation. But the 1-1-1-1 approximation is visibly wrong under the standard case.

Look, I know that this was done to make the game simpler to play. I understand that. And I agree that, viewed purely as a boardgame, this probably makes for a better experience. Fair enough.

But you cannot sensibly argue that it's right. It's just not.

(And this thread is about simulation. So, yes, the accuracy of the simulation is a relevant point.)

 

[Oldtimer]

Well, characters do very often move in straight lines.

Look, the standard human movement rate is 7 squares. Moving on a diagonal, they should move approximately 4.9497 squares.

Using 1-2-1-2 movement, they move 5 squares. The error here is small enough to be negligible.

Using 1-1-1-1 diagonals, they move 7 squares. Here, the error is large enough to be visibly wrong.

As movement rates go up, all the errors become more and more pronounced. And 1-2-1-2 will eventually break down as an approximation. But the 1-1-1-1 approximation is visibly wrong under the standard case.

Look, I know that this was done to make the game simpler to play. I understand that. And I agree that, viewed purely as a boardgame, this probably makes for a better experience. Fair enough.

But you cannot sensibly argue that it's right. It's just not.

(And this thread is about simulation. So, yes, the accuracy of the simulation is a relevant point.)

Let's try a different scenario then:

O......
.......
......T

The straight line distance from O (origin) to T (target) is 6.32 squares.
1-2-1-2 rule gives 7 squares.
1-1-1-1 rule gives 6 squares.

Obviously the 1-1-1-1 rule is the better simulation here.

 

[Scribble]

Look, I know that this was done to make the game simpler to play. I understand that. And I agree that, viewed purely as a boardgame, this probably makes for a better experience. Fair enough.

But you cannot sensibly argue that it's right. It's just not.

(And this thread is about simulation. So, yes, the accuracy of the simulation is a relevant point.)

You keep saying board game, and I think that's completely incorrect...

For ME it's about a better experience overall. The idea of alternating squares to me calls up the fact that I'm playing a game more-so then just moving a number of squares. It makes me actively stop what I'm doing and think: Ok one square, two squares, one square, two squares... It's a little thing sure- but it does pull me out of the experience just a little bit and make me think about the rules.

Moving to just whatever my movement allows is better for me. I just do it. (Really I think they should probably remove the grid entirely and just go by "averages..." Like you can move about 6inches...)

A lot of simulationists tend to argue that lack of simulationism makes them more apparent of the "game" behind the game... It's completely the opposite for me. Simulationism makes me think about rules, and that makes me more aware of the game.

In the real world when something happens I know there is an explanation even if it looks down right impossible. If I did a bunch of experiments I could probably figure it out- but that's not going to happen. I just deal with whatever it is I'm presented with.

Simulationist games tend to feel like my character has somehow stopped everything and done a ton of complicated science experiments, physics and quantum mechanics and somehow figured out everything there is to know about the world... And since I know that's not true, it brings to my mind the fact that the author of the game is attempting to portray through rules the way he thinks the world works... And that reminds me I'm playing a game.

"Gamism" to me feels more like real life... Stuff happens, and I just deal with it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No it didn't. 3.0e expressed distances in feet, and didn't assume the use of the grid at all.

3.5e used 1-2-1-2 diagonals.



Pythagoras, Euclid, and the real world all say you're wrong. Feel free to measure it out.

Don´t force me to take out my 3.0 book again... yes, it used feet, but there were guidelines for using the grid which assumed 2-2-2-2 for diagonals. And even 2-2-2-2 diagonals are based of a mathematically more correct metric than 1-2-1-2...

it is just that 1-2-1-2 simulates euclidean geometry (with |a|=sqrt(a1^2+a2^2) )better than the other two IF you move on an isosceles triangle (a is a 2-dim vector, a1 and a2 are its components)

maybe you want to look up (at wikipedia or so)

eucledian metric: ||a||=|a|
taxicab metric ||a||=a1+a2
and maximum metric (Chebyshev distance) ||a||=max(a1+a2) which the movement of the king on the chessboard follows...

 

[delericho]

Let's try a different scenario then: <snip>

Obviously the 1-1-1-1 rule is the better simulation here.

Look, 1-2-1-2 isn't a perfect model either. Any model, other than using the actual measured distances, will always have errors. And, indeed, you've managed to find one of the very few cases where 1-1-1-1 happens to give a closer answer.

But 1-2-1-2 has the occasional "off by 1" error in the standard move. 1-1-1-1 has "off by 2" errors, at which point the error becomes clear to the naked eye.

Mathematically, 1-2-1-2 is simply the better model.

For ME it's about a better experience overall. The idea of alternating squares to me calls up the fact that I'm playing a game more-so then just moving a number of squares. It makes me actively stop what I'm doing and think: Ok one square, two squares, one square, two squares... It's a little thing sure- but it does pull me out of the experience just a little bit and make me think about the rules.

Conversely, when I consider that I can move 35 feet, unless I'm on a diagonal in which case I can move 49 feet, I lose all sense of what's going on. That's beyond the margin for error that I can just shrug off.

In the real world when something happens I know there is an explanation even if it looks down right impossible. If I did a bunch of experiments I could probably figure it out- but that's not going to happen. I just deal with whatever it is I'm presented with.

Problem is, the case we're looking at fails under even casual observation.

"Gamism" to me feels more like real life... Stuff happens, and I just deal with it.

On the other hand, the moment I scratch the surface of 4e's maths, the whole thing translates into gibberish. Round rooms have corners. Turning 45 degrees changes all the distances. And so it goes on.

If I have to disengage my brain to play the game, something is badly wrong. Evidently, your mileage varies.

 

[Imaro]

You keep saying board game, and I think that's completely incorrect...

For ME it's about a better experience overall. The idea of alternating squares to me calls up the fact that I'm playing a game more-so then just moving a number of squares. It makes me actively stop what I'm doing and think: Ok one square, two squares, one square, two squares... It's a little thing sure- but it does pull me out of the experience just a little bit and make me think about the rules.

Moving to just whatever my movement allows is better for me. I just do it. (Really I think they should probably remove the grid entirely and just go by "averages..." Like you can move about 6inches...)

A lot of simulationists tend to argue that lack of simulationism makes them more apparent of the "game" behind the game... It's completely the opposite for me. Simulationism makes me think about rules, and that makes me more aware of the game.

In the real world when something happens I know there is an explanation even if it looks down right impossible. If I did a bunch of experiments I could probably figure it out- but that's not going to happen. I just deal with whatever it is I'm presented with.

Simulationist games tend to feel like my character has somehow stopped everything and done a ton of complicated science experiments, physics and quantum mechanics and somehow figured out everything there is to know about the world... And since I know that's not true, it brings to my mind the fact that the author of the game is attempting to portray through rules the way he thinks the world works... And that reminds me I'm playing a game.

"Gamism" to me feels more like real life... Stuff happens, and I just deal with it.

The thing that soured me on the whole diagonal 1-1-1 thing is that once my players realized they could move alot further along diagonals suddenly everyone always moved along diagonals if at all possible and often more time was taken to count out the diagonal path that would let them move the furthest towards whatever goal they were trying to reach.

IMO, the 1-1-1 diagonal thing did nothing for us in the realm of moving naturally and actually gives a carrot to the players that choose not to move in a natural manner across the grid. This is one of my problems with gamist mechanics... you are often rewarded for playing the system, even if what you are doing is absurd in the context of the story and world.

 

[Nichwee]

The thing that soured me on the whole diagonal 1-1-1 thing is that once my players realized they could move alot further along diagonals suddenly everyone always moved along diagonals if at all possible and often more time was taken to count out the diagonal path that would let them move the furthest towards whatever goal they were trying to reach.

IMO, the 1-1-1 diagonal thing did nothing for us in the realm of moving naturally and actually gives a carrot to the players that choose not to move in a natural manner across the grid. This is one of my problems with gamist mechanics... you are often rewarded for playing the system, even if what you are doing is absurd in the context of the story and world.

Diagonals in D&D don't let you go further (in map terms) they just let you go directly.
i.e
If you want to reach a given point you don't care if that point is on a diagonal or a straight you head towards it. And yes you can hit the issue of a wall to your right is X squares away, a wall in front is Y squares away and the corner joining the to is max(X,Y) instead of sqrt(X*X+Y*Y) but the same is true of any effect that you, or anyone else uses. So it does you no good to "game" your movement along diagonals as the rest of the universe will not note how this was different than turning to face the diagonal and walking straight. The only thing diagonals stop you doing is walking the outside of the triangle - which is a dumb way to walk in any situation (except when you walk down corridors or street that have terrain stopping the direct route).

If you want to get away from something it doesn't matter if you go diagonally or not you still end up "speed" away from where you started.

All the 1-1-1-1 diagonals did was "muddy" the distances in real life terms:
A room is 4x4 (squares) and the diagonal is 4 squares. So the room is 20x20 ft with a 20ft diagonal = Nonsense.
But if the room is 15-20 x 15-20 ft (3-4sq by 3-4sq rounding up) with a 20-25ft (4-5sq rounding down) diagonal = not so bad.

 

[Scribble]

Problem is, the case we're looking at fails under even casual observation.

I think that's kind of another aspect where my point comes up... It seems to ME that Simulationists, despite the fact they tend to argue that simulationism allows them to more easily ignore the game behind the game... seem to pay more attention to rules then non simulationists.

With the rule as it stands there isn't really a casual observation on my part. I'm just moving my guy. My brain is ignoring the rules and thinking about the scene.

With the 1/2/1 approach it pulls me out.

On the other hand, the moment I scratch the surface of 4e's maths, the whole thing translates into gibberish. Round rooms have corners. Turning 45 degrees changes all the distances. And so it goes on.

And again- to a non simulationist it seems like they're always thinking bout the rules. They're thinking about how the rules interact with the world.

If I'm playing a simulationist game, it's forcing me to think about the rules. What's the math problem I need to do to calculate the distance my gun can fire in a foggy room with a denser atmosphere, but lower gravity...

Instead of just thinking about my character firing his gun.

If I have to disengage my brain to play the game, something is badly wrong. Evidently, your mileage varies.

Not disengage my brain- just disengage it from the rules. I'd rather my brain concentrate on the imaginary scene being set, instead of the physics behind how it's being set.

For my part I tend to find that simmulationist style games seem to make me jump through hoops to get to basically the same place...

It' possible for people to have different playing style I think and to talk about it, without saying someone who plays differently is "disengaging their brain."

The thing that soured me on the whole diagonal 1-1-1 thing is that once my players realized they could move alot further along diagonals suddenly everyone always moved along diagonals if at all possible and often more time was taken to count out the diagonal path that would let them move the furthest towards whatever goal they were trying to reach.

I think the case could be made that it's a bad rule overall for that very reason.

Which is why I think they should return to the inches idea, and remove the grid. Only I would prefer if the game heavily emphasizes distances in the "about" range as opposed to concrete.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

You could all start using Hexes and then this is all nice and moot! Except then, you can't go in a nice straight line, you have to swagger. Which could be in character.