Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4052687" data-attributes="member: 51325">Which of course beggars the question &quot;Why change it&quot;. 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 &quot;Wait, it isn't already 1-1-1, well damn, I've been using that all the time&quot;. 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 &quot;powergame&quot; the grid. While the pro 1-2-1 crowd have mentioned the fear of the &quot;grid-warrior&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AllisterH, post: 4052687, member: 51325"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification