Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4054146" data-attributes="member: 957">The current rules do meet the precision needs of the target audience.A) The five foot squares have been accepted in gaming well beyond D&amp;D or even RPGS.B) You still have not addressed the fundamental difference between accepting that some error exists and an intentionally addition of new error onto the systemC) The drumbeat of 4E is &quot;more simple&quot;, so new complexities are a non-starterD) I'm not convinced that an error of 6% is at all significant being as it seems very safe to assume that all humans vary their rate of movement in combat situations anyway.&nbsp; 6% is probably high, but it is reasonable.&nbsp; 40% is absurd.Again, there is a fundamental difference between accepting implicit error and adding error that the system doesn't require.&nbsp; With all the D&amp;D assumptions in place there is a &quot;best&quot; answer.&nbsp; The intentional addition of error is a whole new issue.If it is an abstraction worthy of ignoring 40% error then why the hell does anyone care if they forget whether the next move is a 1 or a 2 and they might add another 5% of less error?&nbsp; Seriously, the entire reason for doing this is to avoid an error in counting 1/2/1/2.&nbsp; And the &quot;solution&quot; is to make everyone a lot more wrong always.&nbsp; Anybody who truly believes that the 40% error of 1/1/1/1 is ok because it is an abstraction can't possibly care if their movement was off by 5% because of 1/2/1/2 mistakes.&nbsp; The solution contradicts the very foundation of the problem it claims to solve.And if you are just going with a majority rule answer, then I firmly believe that 1/2/1/2 would win that handily.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4054146, member: 957"] The current rules do meet the precision needs of the target audience. A) The five foot squares have been accepted in gaming well beyond D&D or even RPGS. B) You still have not addressed the fundamental difference between accepting that some error exists and an intentionally addition of new error onto the system C) The drumbeat of 4E is "more simple", so new complexities are a non-starter D) I'm not convinced that an error of 6% is at all significant being as it seems very safe to assume that all humans vary their rate of movement in combat situations anyway. 6% is probably high, but it is reasonable. 40% is absurd. Again, there is a fundamental difference between accepting implicit error and adding error that the system doesn't require. With all the D&D assumptions in place there is a "best" answer. The intentional addition of error is a whole new issue. If it is an abstraction worthy of ignoring 40% error then why the hell does anyone care if they forget whether the next move is a 1 or a 2 and they might add another 5% of less error? Seriously, the entire reason for doing this is to avoid an error in counting 1/2/1/2. And the "solution" is to make everyone a lot more wrong always. Anybody who truly believes that the 40% error of 1/1/1/1 is ok because it is an abstraction can't possibly care if their movement was off by 5% because of 1/2/1/2 mistakes. The solution contradicts the very foundation of the problem it claims to solve. And if you are just going with a majority rule answer, then I firmly believe that 1/2/1/2 would win that handily. [/QUOTE]

Verification