Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nom" data-source="post: 4053490" data-attributes="member: 56980">No, 1-1-1 is irrelevant for gamists.&nbsp; Reality for the gamist is defined by the game mechanics.&nbsp; Thus it doesn't really matter to the pure gamist whether diagonals are always 1 or sometimes 1 and sometimes 2 or hexes or whatever, except as these affect the playability of the game.&nbsp; That some border cases will differ to the previous ruleset is neither here nor there.Simulationists might care, if they care about simulating the physical environment.&nbsp; Though they may be better served by going gridless.&nbsp; Especially since the issue is one of magnitude of oddball measuring effects, not presence.&nbsp; Plus, &quot;going around&quot; is far more of an issue from turn-based play rather than euclidean distance.&nbsp; Yes, there are certain situations where someone could not &quot;go around&quot; in 3E but can in 4.&nbsp; But it's also quite possible to create situations where &quot;going around&quot; in 3E wouldn't match the same issue if playing without a grid (both where 3E is more generous and where it is less).&nbsp; The rule doesn't exactly model reality.&nbsp; But it's only internally broken if you mix 3E and 4E movement mechanics.Huh?&nbsp; Narrativists are about exploring the idea in narrative. D&amp;D is a gamist system that can sorta be used simulationist.&nbsp; Thus, I doubt any narrativists care about &quot;the different effect of turn-based vs euclidean approximations&quot;.&nbsp; Narrativists might appreciate the 1-1 metric for being simpler (and thus reducing the mechanics in the way of their story) or just ditch the grid altogether and wing it.Heck, I'm a gamist, and I've still considered just ditching the grid and winging it, because I find that pickyness over movement distances isn't a game mechanic aspect that is particularly interesting - I'd rather break out cool combos of abilities than quibble over counting.Basically, 1-1-1 is only uniquely broken if(1) you take a simulationist perspective and(2) you are using a subjective measure for how much euclidean inaccuracy counts as &quot;broken&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nom, post: 4053490, member: 56980"] No, 1-1-1 is irrelevant for gamists. Reality for the gamist is [u]defined by[/u] the game mechanics. Thus it doesn't really matter to the pure gamist whether diagonals are always 1 or sometimes 1 and sometimes 2 or hexes or whatever, except as these affect the playability of the game. That some border cases will differ to the previous ruleset is neither here nor there. Simulationists might care, if they care about simulating the physical environment. Though they may be better served by going gridless. Especially since the issue is one of magnitude of oddball measuring effects, not presence. Plus, "going around" is far more of an issue from turn-based play rather than euclidean distance. Yes, there are certain situations where someone could not "go around" in 3E but can in 4. But it's also quite possible to create situations where "going around" in 3E wouldn't match the same issue if playing without a grid (both where 3E is more generous and where it is less). The rule doesn't exactly model reality. But it's only [i]internally[/i] broken if you mix 3E and 4E movement mechanics. Huh? Narrativists are about exploring the idea in narrative. D&D is a gamist system that can sorta be used simulationist. Thus, I doubt any narrativists care about "the different effect of turn-based vs euclidean approximations". Narrativists might appreciate the 1-1 metric for being simpler (and thus reducing the mechanics in the way of their story) or just ditch the grid altogether and wing it. Heck, I'm a gamist, and I've still considered just ditching the grid and winging it, because I find that pickyness over movement distances isn't a game mechanic aspect that is particularly interesting - I'd rather break out cool combos of abilities than quibble over counting. Basically, 1-1-1 is only uniquely broken if (1) you take a simulationist perspective and (2) you are using a subjective measure for how much euclidean inaccuracy counts as "broken". [/QUOTE]

Verification