Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4048505" data-attributes="member: 957">For me it is pretty much another cinder block on the greasy stain that was once a camel.There is a difference between shades of gray abstractions, particularly for things that represent activity over time, and being flat out wrong in regard to fixed values.Huh?&nbsp; First of all, with no facing a creature wouldn't be turned 45 degrees at any time anyway.&nbsp; But even if you did, the size of a huge creature would still be exactly 15 feet per side regardless of how you place the mini on the table.&nbsp; Which is completely unlike running on a diagonal, in which case the distance actually changes.As to &quot;creating&quot; an experience, that is a complete misunderstanding of the point.For those of us who find 1/2/1/2 to be really really simple and resulting in virtually no errors or game delays, the explicit addition of blatant error introduces a constant distraction from the depth of experience.&nbsp; The game doesn't create the experience, the players do that.&nbsp; But a game can screw it up and a good game stays out of the way as much as it can.To compare this to initiative or spacing is absurb.&nbsp; It is easy to imagine that initiative is simply a representation of continuous activity and it is easy to imagine that a large snake (the extreme of not a square) could be moving and adjusting continuously in a given area.&nbsp; These abstraction all encompass very reasonable possibilities.&nbsp; It is not possible for 28 feet to turn into 20 feet just because you change point of view.&nbsp; You have moved from covering a range to simply being wrong.Would I like a more accurate system than even 3.5?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; That'd be great.&nbsp; But the value is there and it works.&nbsp; This change does nothing but add absolute error in exchange for nothing but a &quot;simplicity&quot; that I find to be of flat zero merit and even a bit of an insult to the mental agility of the people I game with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4048505, member: 957"] For me it is pretty much another cinder block on the greasy stain that was once a camel. There is a difference between shades of gray abstractions, particularly for things that represent activity over time, and being flat out wrong in regard to fixed values. Huh? First of all, with no facing a creature wouldn't be turned 45 degrees at any time anyway. But even if you did, the size of a huge creature would still be exactly 15 feet per side regardless of how you place the mini on the table. Which is completely unlike running on a diagonal, in which case the distance actually changes. As to "creating" an experience, that is a complete misunderstanding of the point. For those of us who find 1/2/1/2 to be really really simple and resulting in virtually no errors or game delays, the explicit addition of blatant error introduces a constant distraction from the depth of experience. The game doesn't create the experience, the players do that. But a game can screw it up and a good game stays out of the way as much as it can. To compare this to initiative or spacing is absurb. It is easy to imagine that initiative is simply a representation of continuous activity and it is easy to imagine that a large snake (the extreme of not a square) could be moving and adjusting continuously in a given area. These abstraction all encompass very reasonable possibilities. It is not possible for 28 feet to turn into 20 feet just because you change point of view. You have moved from covering a range to simply being wrong. Would I like a more accurate system than even 3.5? Sure. That'd be great. But the value is there and it works. This change does nothing but add absolute error in exchange for nothing but a "simplicity" that I find to be of flat zero merit and even a bit of an insult to the mental agility of the people I game with. [/QUOTE]

Verification