Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 4048337" data-attributes="member: 2268">And I'm kinda sure that, if you search back to the introduction of the 3.5 changes to the online gaming public, you'll see plenty of similar threads where the sense/nonsense of cubic creatures is discussed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> We're not talking about what we individually will do with this "new" official core rule will do. Personally, I happily ignore a big heap of little detail rules in 3.X, including the whole minimap subgame it has brought to the table. If I was going to play 4E outright, this version of "how to describe a (relatively) continuous world and movement therein in quantums of 125 cubic feet cubes" would be right on top of my "don't bother" list. My group doesn't have problems with guessing at spell effects, movement and maneuvers come from descriptions of the situation and use relative points from those descriptions, and distances are usually ruled-by-thumb.This thread here simply takes the principles of a new core rule and tries to extrapolate what it says about the general outlook on the game to come. And to be honest, a game that is supposed to describe reality with its rules a bit more consistently and (sacrilege) more realistic than say Stratego or Chess, but takes a tone of "for ease of play, we will ignore the fact that a grid is supposed to describe space instead of shaping it, and install this silly rule that flies in the face of normal geometrical understanding, because none of the players we want to play this game will care anyway" simply looks like it's not giving a bother about the effect that simple rule might have on the rest of their game world...or those players who are interested enough to realize it, and don't really like it. In other words, those that usually are called the "vocal minority" here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Again, except if we can see D&D turn into a 100% boardgame here that describes every distance possible in squares, this rule will create a complete disconnect between physical reality in a non-combat situation and physical reality in a combat situation. Since I assume we won't see D&D - The Boardgaming with 4E, we will get a lot of situations in a game where people deal with standard euclidean geometry in their roleplaying, simply because that is what we deal with in real life, and it will be transferred to every inplay situation. Except for combat, where all of a sudden space is anisotropic, and your speed is greater in one direction than in another, without you having changed it yourself. Fireballs will take a cubic shape, as will any effect with a radius spread, and there will be plenty of players who will try to use this difference to their utmost advantage (D&D seems to cultivate those <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> ).If that stuff is nothing worth noticing to you, okay...I don't want to get drawn into a "game rules as physics" discussion here (that's what the other thread is there for after all). But simply handwaving it away with a laugh and wondering how people can get offended by something so "small" is not exactly looking at the whole picture either.</blockquote>

Verification