Reason 'squares' is better than 'feet': the metric system

[ruleslawyer]

The question is more if the battlemap represents all of D&D reality, and hence the rest of the world is represented by a giant battlemap, or if the battlemap is simply a tool to make representing battles easier, and hence is only an abstraction of reality for the duration of combat.

The latter, obviously.

It seems only logical that the battlemat, and therefore the "square," gets trotted out only when combat ensues. The reason that everything we've seen so far is described in squares is because all we've seen thus far is combat rules. During combat play, it is easier for the DM and players to have rules that reference squares, and so it is, since one of 4e's stated goals is to speed combat play. One question: Did the flavor text of the modules played at DDXP describe rooms, etc. in terms of "squares" or by using some other measurement?

 

[Jdvn1]

Then again, another friend of mine thinks they should've adopted a more fantasy-ish term that is archaic: fathom. A fathom is 6 ft., or 1.8288 meters. He plans to run his game with 1 square = 1 fathom.

Really? So, you friend counts movement 6', 12', 18', 24', 30'--so 30' is now 5 squares instead of the traditional 6? I'd imagine his players would have a tough time with this, since they're probably used to either feet or squares.

"I want to go out 100' and--"
"You mean 16 and 2/3 fathoms?"
"Um... sure..."

 

[WhatGravitas]

...you're looking at decimal places and guestimates between the cm marks on a measuring tape.

With which I have no problem at all!

Well, here in Germany, we're brought up with the metric system. The imperial system is not used at all, and studying physics doesn't help with non-SI units at all!

I guess it's mostly a matter of upbringing...

Actually no, it doesn't. The German (and AFAIK any other european country with metric system and an own edition) uses 5 feet = 1.5 meters = 1 square on the table

Yeah, the metric system is used for the entire 3E translations in Germany, both 3E and 3.5, despite publisher change. And with 1.5 metres = 5 feet = 1 square. But I don't know about 2E.

Cheers, LT.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I like it, but the problem is not the abstraction, but the fact the measurement unit means nothing to some people.
If you tell me something is 150 paces away I still don't understand if it's far or near. Paces, on a first moment, give me no notion of distance.

But it is far better than squares.

In the D&D world, a pace could be a defined unit of measurement that equals 5 feet, just like a yard equals 3 feet. Distances would be expressed by characters in either feet or paces, just like distances in our world could be expressed in feet or yards. A DM could tell players that a tower is either 750 feet or 150 paces away. Either would be valid. It might take players a little time to adjust, but I think most would.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Just a comment...and this one is completely unrelated to any specific edition.

Anybody who has 5' paces doesn't fall under the "Medium" size category anymore.

I've simply experimented a bit, and with 1' square tiles it's like having a small battlemap on my floor, and my "normal" pacing distance is 2 feet (and I'm 5'9''/1,76 m and of normal build). If I stretch some (i.e. I move faster), I cover 3 feet with one step. Trying to cover 5 feet with one step would split my jeans, and would work best while bouncing around. Maybe as some sort of combat movement, this unit of measuring distance could be called a "pace" and cover 5 feet of distance, with people most likely running more than walking or pacing.

The fact is that nearly everybody will try to translate measurements back into his "normal" frame of reference, except if the complete abstraction of the medium from reality is accepted. When I played BECMI D&D, I was most comfortable with the back then used Elle when I knew it measured 30 cm. By now I'm simply fast enough to translate the distances back- and forward. Heights still give me pause, what with inches being a bit more complicated to calculate.

And of course, your mileage my differ, especially if you use kilometers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The german roleplaying DSA also uses the "old names" or medieval sounding names like Fuß, Elle, Meile, Stein (foot, cubit, mile, stones), but they stand in for metric units. I guess that would be confusing to "non-metric" players and wouldn't ease the translation, either.
(Interestingly, many adventure authors seem to forget this fact and refer to the metric units instead)

 

[nerfherder]

The reason that everything we've seen so far is described in squares is because all we've seen thus far is combat rules. During combat play, it is easier for the DM and players to have rules that reference squares, and so it is, since one of 4e's stated goals is to speed combat play. One question: Did the flavor text of the modules played at DDXP describe rooms, etc. in terms of "squares" or by using some other measurement?

Incidentally, in SWSE, all combat stats are given in squares, but ships are described as being X feet long. The designers said that non-combat measurements were give in real-world units.

 

[Lackhand]

Just a comment...and this one is completely unrelated to any specific edition.

Anybody who has 5' paces doesn't fall under the "Medium" size category anymore.

I've simply experimented a bit, and with 1' square tiles it's like having a small battlemap on my floor, and my "normal" pacing distance is 2 feet (and I'm 5'9''/1,76 m and of normal build). If I stretch some (i.e. I move faster), I cover 3 feet with one step. Trying to cover 5 feet with one step would split my jeans, and would work best while bouncing around. Maybe as some sort of combat movement, this unit of measuring distance could be called a "pace" and cover 5 feet of distance, with people most likely running more than walking or pacing.

The fact is that nearly everybody will try to translate measurements back into his "normal" frame of reference, except if the complete abstraction of the medium from reality is accepted. When I played BECMI D&D, I was most comfortable with the back then used Elle when I knew it measured 30 cm. By now I'm simply fast enough to translate the distances back- and forward. Heights still give me pause, what with inches being a bit more complicated to calculate.

And of course, your mileage my differ, especially if you use kilometers.

Historical Tangent! The Roman pace was *two* steps, which yours is too, if each step is a smidge over 2 feet.

This is why the imperial mile (1000 paces!) is 52580 feet -- each pace (two steps, remember) is just a hair over 5.2 feet, as measured by a centurion on the march.

And now you know.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I'm gonna start off buy saying i haven't read all of this thread.However I don't see why they couldn't use something like 5'/1.5 meters .So any distance would have that set up.Movement 30'/9.1{call it 9],20/6m. Range 150'/45.7or46m..10'/3m.I myself think any game book being used in different country's but printed in the u.s. should use such so at a glance you can see both units of measurements .

just a thought

 

[Lackhand]

Hunter -- that's very hard to read, that's why Even if you take out the bet-hedging, it's confusing and distracting.

I think arbitrary units that nobody uses, but which are easy to adjudicate for in-game effects, with pretty clear rules on how to translate between them and real-world units, are far superior.

Honestly, though, if you don't use a battlemat, you end up doing everything in your head anyway, and then all you need is "close, medium, far" ranges, and specific square counts don't matter. Since it's only really applicable on the battlemat or equivalents thereof, I don't mind the gamey terminology.