Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5206887" data-attributes="member: 18280">That's nonsense.Discussion of the effects of X, without any ability to consider what X might be other than what it is are futile at best.I am not arguing that the grid doesn't satisfy you -- clearly it does.&nbsp; But the idea that the grid is required for complexity, or for coherence/accuracy, is simply wrong.However, that said, the grid itself creates its own fuzziness to combat, at least as it is used in WotC-D&amp;D.&nbsp; I mean, if you can travel farther on a diagonal than not, or if you have a system where, say, either the world is divided into 5-foot chunks or exactly what terrain you are on in in question.&nbsp; Or where a horse requires a square space......Or, worse yet, a 200-foot-long snake requires a square space......I would say you have entered the realm of vague fuzziness with regards to actual location.&nbsp; I mean, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard as an answer to CaGI affecting some creatures &quot;Perhaps the creature was always there?&quot; or words to that effect.&nbsp; No, I am afraid that the grid substitutes one form of vagueness for another.&nbsp; And, by fooling some folks into thinking that they have eliminated vagueness, it perhaps does a disservice to them in the bargain.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />By all means, use a grid if you want to.&nbsp; If you enjoy it, or if you find that you need it, all the more power to you.But please don't imagine that it is necessary for everyone, or that those who enjoy gridless combat somehow have more &quot;vague&quot; combats than you do.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />After all, no one in this thread has come up with an example of mini-using combat that didn't involve vague positioning and using player narrative control.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5206887, member: 18280"] That's nonsense. Discussion of the effects of X, without any ability to consider what X [B][I]might be other than what it is[/I][/B] are futile at best. I am not arguing that the grid doesn't satisfy you -- clearly it does. But the idea that the grid is required for complexity, or for coherence/accuracy, is simply wrong. However, that said, the grid itself creates its own fuzziness to combat, at least as it is used in WotC-D&D. I mean, if you can travel farther on a diagonal than not, or if you have a system where, say, either the world is divided into 5-foot chunks or exactly what terrain you are on in in question. Or where a horse requires a square space......Or, worse yet, a 200-foot-long snake requires a square space......I would say you have entered the realm of vague fuzziness with regards to actual location. I mean, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard as an answer to CaGI affecting some creatures "Perhaps the creature was always there?" or words to that effect. No, I am afraid that the grid substitutes one form of vagueness for another. And, by fooling some folks into thinking that they have eliminated vagueness, it perhaps does a disservice to them in the bargain. :( By all means, use a grid if you want to. If you enjoy it, or if you find that you need it, all the more power to you. But please don't imagine that it is necessary for everyone, or that those who enjoy gridless combat somehow have more "vague" combats than you do. :lol: After all, no one in this thread has come up with an example of mini-using combat that didn't involve vague positioning and using player narrative control. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification