D&D 4E Non-Euclidean Geometry in 4E?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

From what I can tell, only a few WotC employees -- maybe as few as one -- really understand the non-Euclidean consequences of the 1-1-1-1 rule.

Do you really believe that, or do you just use the extreme position because not every designer of WotC is walking up in this or similar threads and tells "yes, we know that's not exactly eucledian, but we don't care, because playability is more important for us?"
If it's the latter, everything is fine for me. If the first... Well, nothing is fine, but I am rendered unable to say anthing further on that.

First off: I prefer 1-2-1, if I have to use an approximation at all. (Which I usually have to with D&D)
I would dislike Firecubes instead of fireballs - or maybe not? Maybe it's just a further step from the "Fireball always fills the same volume"? (And who is to say that 4E fireballs still have a 20 ft radius?)

But:
I hope nobody ever forgets that the 2-2-2 rules of Star Wars or the 1-2-1 standard of 3.x also create non-eucledian worlds, because it's still an approximation. The difference is just that "people" are slower on diagonals then on straights rather the other way around. (Or should I say they are faster when moving straight lines?)
I could now go and construct an example of how a poor Cleric is unable to reach the dying Wizard because moving on a diagonal costs him too much movement to get to him in time (addmitedly, the 1-2-1 rules have a lower margin of error, which means the example might require a few more than just 1 round of combat)

And with that in mind, aren't some of you guys getting a bit to worked up about your "Far Realms" universe? (I can absolutely understand liking to play around with the image tags and a cool grid-making software, though.)

Oh, and to add something else: The real world space isn't exactly Eucledian, either.
The surface of the earth is curved, which means the usual rules of (2D) Eucledian Geometry don't apply entirely. The 3D space we know and like and move through is part of the space-time, and is curved in it, so Eucledian geometry doesn't apply entirely, either.
The real world is far real(m)istic, too.

 

[Rel]

So you are endorsing the position that anyone who rejects the claim that this trade is a net gain should avoid 4E?

Personally I'd endorse the position that if you like other aspects of 4e but this one bothers you then it's very easy to fix.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You claimed it was one of the most simple.

i still claim it. it just depends how many you actually include in "most"...

 

[HeinorNY]

2) The map grid in rectangular rooms is always aligned to the walls of the room, regardless of whether that room is at a 45 degree angle to the rest of the dungeon or not - that is, the grid shifts to match the room. This is not, of course, always the case with corridors.

Yeah I noticed that too. I think we won't have to care about the diagonal room problem if we use D&D Dungeon Tiles™ by Wizards of the Coast®

 

[Hussar]

/snippage

a) The diagonal of a 5'x5' square is equally 5' long.
or
b) The diagonal of a 5'x5' square is roughly 7' long, but a character can still traverse it in one movement step.
/more snippage

Or we could simply throw consistency out of the window...it's just a silly RPG after all, nobody cares about those details anyway, right?

See, the problem is GR, you are ignoring the fact that the grid already completely weirds out geometry as it is.

Take the following DM description:

The 15 foot wide corridor proceeds north, bends to the northeast for some distance and then straightens out to the north again.

That would generally mean that the corridor remains a constant width right? But, when you draw that on the map:

suddenly our corridor shrinks to just over 5 feet wide. A huge creature could not pass through that corridor during combat. Too narrow. You can only squeeze so much.

And, yes, I realize that 4e doesn't fix this. I know that. My point isn't that 4e is going to fix the issue, it's that the map is already so abstract that this is relatively minor.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you don't like it, go gridless.

WotC: We want to change the grid system in ways that make no geometric sense.
ByronD: No. I don't like those changes.
Nom: Well, if you're not with us, you're against us! Why don't you just throw away your grid, you grid-hater!

I don't suppose that this sort of extremism is called for. The issue for most people is that there's already a perfectly serviceable system in place for moving on a grid, and the proposed changes are not perceived as improvements to that system. Suggesting that they are somehow against the whole concept of grid-based movement because they disagree with the direction WotC wants to take it demonstrates that you miss the point completely.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

i still claim it. it just depends how many you actually include in "most"...

I guess that makes me one of the world's best chess players.

 

[AllisterH]

WotC: We want to change the grid system in ways that make no geometric sense.
ByronD: No. I don't like those changes.
Nom: Well, if you're not with us, you're against us! Why don't you just throw away your grid, you grid-hater!

I don't suppose that this sort of extremism is called for. The issue for most people is that there's already a perfectly serviceable system in place for moving on a grid, and the proposed changes are not perceived as improvements to that system. Suggesting that they are somehow against the whole concept of grid-based movement because they disagree with the direction WotC wants to take it demonstrates that you miss the point completely.

Which of course beggars the question "Why change it".

Listen to the podcast and it seems like DMShoe wasn't happy with the decision, but also look through this entire thread.

How many different posters even on the first page responded "Wait, it isn't already 1-1-1, well damn, I've been using that all the time". Are you basically telling WOTC that they should just ignore them?

The issue about switching the orientation of the grid doesn't come up for most people since, and this is the big thing, most people it seems won't actually "powergame" the grid. While the pro 1-2-1 crowd have mentioned the fear of the "grid-warrior" taking advantage of this quirk, I don't think many other gamers consider this a problem.

That's one of the big reasons why I suspect many people prefer the 1-1-1 option. They don't have to worry about one of their gamers trying to min-max movement especially given that the first time they try that, either the other players will pelt dice at the gamer or more likely, the DM will use the same tactic next time to screw them over.

That's why I think WOTC went with the 1-1-1 option. Not because they don't understand Euclidean geometry as another poster alluded to, but because obeying Euclidean geometry doesn't have enough benefit for most of the gamers.

re: Euclidean geometry in the wider world.
Hell, as Mustrum Ridicully pointed out, even the 1-2-1 method doesn't model the world properly.since itself is an approximation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is flawed. This corridor actually does shrink if you build it that way (from 15ft to 10ft)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

See, the problem is GR, you are ignoring the fact that the grid already completely weirds out geometry as it is.

Take the following DM description:

The 15 foot wide corridor proceeds north, bends to the northeast for some distance and then straightens out to the north again.

That would generally mean that the corridor remains a constant width right? But, when you draw that on the map:

suddenly our corridor shrinks to just over 5 feet wide. A huge creature could not pass through that corridor during combat. Too narrow. You can only squeeze so much.

And, yes, I realize that 4e doesn't fix this. I know that. My point isn't that 4e is going to fix the issue, it's that the map is already so abstract that this is relatively minor.

This is flawed. This corridor actually does shrink if you build it that way (from 15ft to 10ft)

Yeah, uhm...I guess that's why you should draw it more like this if you want to keep the corridor at same width? I thought that was basic stuff that you learn when you start drawing dungeons on graph paper.



And I apologize for the small size..just click on it for a bigger version.