What geometry do you prefer?

[Celtavian]

re

I don't care too much. For movement I use the 1-2-1-2. For spells and such I use a guestimate system where I set up approximte points and draw a loose circle or cone. I don't need to be precise to get an idea of what the area of a spell blast.

 

[S'mon]

I like "No grid, string or ruler measurement" best, but my battleboard has squares so they get used. My preferences, in order:

1. String/ruler
2. Hexes
3. 1-2-1

 

[mhacdebhandia]

No grid - if I were to formalise my preferred rules, everyone would have a "reach zone" in a circle around them, if you see what I mean. You can keep all the rules about five-foot increments of movement, but abandon squares, hexes, and grids of any kind.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I like string with a grid.

You measure out and get to stand on whichever square you can reasonably end up on.

It's already such an abstraction that I'm willing to give a little lee way.

Plus, the grid for reference helps you do changes of direction, which can otherwise be iffy for string.

 

[Jhulae]

I *really* like the 'movement point' option someone menitoned in another thread. Doubling the 'movement' value then going 2 MP cardinally, and 3 MP diagonally. It's much faster easier to just add numbers than try to remember whether your last diagonal was equal to 1 or 2..

 

[KarinsDad]

Hexes have significant advantages, but at the same time they don't 'read' as easy as squares do in terms of numbering of labelling them. Reading, say, square G4, is much easier than hex G4. Admittedly, most battlemaps don't really care about the square designation (only really important for online games), so hexes should be at least as popular as squares.

I haven't played with unmarked hexes since the 70s.

But even so, with an unmarked hex map, just label two of the axes, just like you would with the two orthogonal axes of the square map.

 

[Dausuul]

Diagonal = 2 is just silly. It has all the same problems as diagonal = 1, just rotated 45 degrees. With diagonal = 1, you can bypass an obstacle to the north by going northeast, then northwest, and not lose any time. With diagonal = 2, you can't do that, but you can bypass an obstacle to the northeast by going north, then east--and again, not lose any time.

Given that it's not actually any less Cthulhuesque than diagonal = 1, and it's more complicated, why would you ever go with diagonal = 2?

As for me, I ordered a hex battlemat last night. I'm gonna see if I can sell hexes to my group.

 

[hong]

Actually, come to think of it, I'll use whichever method makes people run around more. Mobility is good.

 

[Wormwood]

Actually, come to think of it, I'll use whichever method makes people run around more. Mobility is good.

That was the deciding factor for me---I prefer Crouching Tiger to Rock'em Sock'em.

 

[Jack Daniel]

If I were still using a 1" = 5' scale and miniatures, it would be diagonal movement counting 1-2-1-2 all the way. But as it stands, I discovered lately that I have no cause to use a scale that fine. All of the movement rates, missile ranges, and spell areas in my edition of choice -- OD&D -- are nearly always measured in 10s of feet, not 5s of feet, and the game itself assumes a square grid where 1" = 10'.

I can mark the positions of characters and monsters using pipped d6s of varying colors, (the numbered ones are for rolling, thank you very much!), I no longer have to cart around loads of minis and chessmen, and best of all, my battlefield just quadrupled in size. I can have huge wilderness battles, or I can fit four times as much dungeon on the matt without erasing the marker.

How does diagonal movement fit into this? I decided that since the system was abstract enough -- lots of characters can fit in a 10' square and fight it out -- the best rule would be that at very close range (i.e., adjacent squares), no moving or attacking into diagonal squares. Beyond that, though, it alternates in order to satisfy everybody's sense of distance and realism. Effectively, since I've switched to a 10' scale, diagonal movement and distances count 2-1-2-1 instead of 1-2-1-2. It's wierd how minor changes like that can actually improve the experience of playing tactical battles on the tabletop, but it did. *shrug*