Tumbling around Corners

[KarinsDad]

*shrug* It seems that you don't understand. The grid is always an abstraction.

Please do not be condescending. You've known me long enough to know that I understand what most people post and if I do not, I'll ask a question.

The point is that a square grid is a poor abstraction due to orientation problems.

A hex grid is generally superior, but even it has problems inherent with certain shape rooms/corridors.

But re-orienting the grid won't change the fact that there isn't enough room between a person and the corner for you to pass between without entering the persons square.

Are you sure? Are you telling me that I cannot reorient a grid such that there is room to get by sometimes, but not others?

For example:

* 1 2 *
* 3 4 *
** 5 **
** 6 **
** 7 **

(hopefully this displays correctly)

10 foot wide corridor becomes a 5 foot wide corridor and is perfectly symmetrical.

If the squares are on 1, 2, 3, and 4, then it is easy to get from 5 to 4 or 4 to 5 without stepping through 3. 5 isn't a full square, rather it is two half squares, but I do not know of a DM who would say that you could not walk up that corridor.

If the squares are on 5, 6, and 7, then there is no square 3 or 4, rather the square is between 3 and 4 and we are basically in the original position from this thread where a square is at the end of the corridor.

So, depending on where the DM puts the squares dictates whether a character can block the corridor (using your interpretation) from within both the 5' and 10' areas (i.e. on 5 or between 3 and 4), or only within the 5' area (only on 5).


Also, a grid could contain a different representation in the DMs mind and the Players' minds.

In the original example, you as a DM might imagine that square 3 blocks any movement into the corridor. In other words, a character in 3 is at the end of the corridor blocking it.

The players might imagine that a character in 3 is inside the room and not standing in the corridor. Hence, you merely have to move around that character.

But, don't you think it a little strange that someone can block an entire intersection like this?

* * - * *
* * - * *
- - x - -
* * - * *
* * - * *

This to me is just silly. Since there are AoO rules, nothing should prevent someone from being able to move past.

This is even more true when it comes to doorways.

Doorways are a problem for any grid system. Often, the edge of a grid (square or hex) comes to the edge of the door. So, characters cannot be both within the grid and standing in the doorway. Either they are on this side of the door, or they are on the far side of the door (typically).

And, due to this problem, I can understand why you would prevent characters from moving past into the doorway, and hence, why you also prevent characters from moving past into a 5 foot corridor (as per the original example).

 

[Celebrim]

Karinsdad: You seem quite intelligent, but you also seem to be having an entirely different conversation than some of us. Whenever the objection is made that the grid is an abstraction, you spend a great deal of effort proving what I would believe is generally well known - that a square grid is a poor abstraction. But, when I find the square grid to be a poor abstraction, I'd simply do away with the grid until I reached a point where the grid was useful again.

For instance, If I had a 5' corridor emptying into the middle wall of a 10'x10' room and a monster (say a bugbear) standing just inside the door, then I'd say "The narrow corridor you have been following widens into a small room 30' ahead. Standing just inside the doorway is a Bugbear." From that description it would be (I think) perfectly clear that to get through the door you must pass through the space that the Bugbear occupies. If a player insisted on me drawing a map and trying to exploit the inadequacies of the square grid to avoid the obvious, I'd insist, "Forget about the grid and the rules and just role play. There is a 300 lb bugbear just inside the door and he doesn't want to let you through." IF the player continued to be obstinate, I'd inform him at the end of the session that I didn't want him to come back if he was going to disrupt the game like that.

If again, the player came to an intersection of two 5' corridors I'd say, "The narrow corridor you have been following intersects at a right angle with an identical corridor 30' ahead. Standing in the intersection with a drawn sword is a bugbear." Again, I think it is perfectly clear that to move from this corridor to any of the other three, you have to move through the bugbear's space. However, since I recognize that there is a little more space (on the diagonal) in the intersection than in the doorway, and if it came up, I'd probably allow the second character trying to tumble through that space a circumstance bonus of some sort (probably +5) since the Bugbear had to shift to the side to block the first character (if only ever so slightly).

All this only become's unclear and complicated when we try to use the grid, which is really supposed to be there to help us. If it instead hinders us, why bother? It is not an essential element of role play. I went 18 years without a grid and never felt uncomfortable adjudicating situations just like this, and indeed, I had to keep track of more things then because I had to rule which way things were facing (because you could get backstabbed, lose your shield bonus, etc.).

Maybe I misunderstand and by showing how inadequate the grid is you are trying to prove that it is despencible. However, it too often sounds like what you are trying to advocate is strict adherence to the rules and to stop worrying about how bad they can be in special situations because the solution is equally bad.

I think what Artoomis is saying (and I concur) is that no system should be blindly adhered to, and that no player should expect to overrule the DM simply because the system says so (especially when the system is clearly flawed).

 

[KarinsDad]

Karinsdad: You seem quite intelligent, but you also seem to be having an entirely different conversation than some of us.

That’s why it’s a forum. To get differing points of view. Does that bother you?

Whenever the objection is made that the grid is an abstraction, you spend a great deal of effort proving what I would believe is generally well known - that a square grid is a poor abstraction. But, when I find the square grid to be a poor abstraction, I'd simply do away with the grid until I reached a point where the grid was useful again.

And, that’s fine for you. However, do not expect everyone to play the game the way you do.

If again, the player came to an intersection of two 5' corridors I'd say, "The narrow corridor you have been following intersects at a right angle with an identical corridor 30' ahead. Standing in the intersection with a drawn sword is a bugbear." Again, I think it is perfectly clear that to move from this corridor to any of the other three, you have to move through the bugbear's space. However, since I recognize that there is a little more space (on the diagonal) in the intersection than in the doorway, and if it came up, I'd probably allow the second character trying to tumble through that space a circumstance bonus of some sort (probably +5) since the Bugbear had to shift to the side to block the first character (if only ever so slightly).

Hence, you are adjusting what you perceive to be the general rule to handle the situation. I prefer to look at a wide variety of situations and come up with a general rule that handles the vast majority of them so that I rarely need to come up with an adjudication during the game. Adjudicating special cases is fine, but I prefer to limit that as much as possible so that I both stay consistent in my rulings and so that I do not have to think a lot about adjudications when I can be handling the combat instead.

Maybe I misunderstand and by showing how inadequate the grid is you are trying to prove that it is despencible. However, it too often sounds like what you are trying to advocate is strict adherence to the rules and to stop worrying about how bad they can be in special situations because the solution is equally bad.

Actually, I firmly believe in strict adherence to the rules where possible. It gives you a more consistent common ground with your players than if you make a lot of sporadic and on the fly rulings.

As for grids, I use hexes. I find there are a lot less problems, one of them being that there is an edge line between every space, hence, going across corners isn’t an issue. But, that does not stop me from having a strong opinion in a square grid discussion.

I think what Artoomis is saying (and I concur) is that no system should be blindly adhered to, and that no player should expect to overrule the DM simply because the system says so (especially when the system is clearly flawed).

I think that you should follow the rules when possible. I think the DM should not “cheat”. I think the game is about fun and a lot of players have less fun if they perceive that the DM is not consistent, or is not following the rules or whatever.

Some people think that the DM is god, but he’s not. Some people think that the DM’s storyline is all important, but it’s not. Everyone is there to have fun, not just the DM. If you abuse the rules too much as a DM for whatever reason, you might find yourself losing players.