Questions of the Grid

[su_liam]

In the extreme case, tape measures, protractors, etc.; for the most part: thumb, finger and scale.

Even at the edges, I'm not sure how good precise precise measurement is realistically. At 600m you have a 30% chance of hitting the target, at 601m, 15%; at 1600m you have a 5% chance of making a hit, at 1601m your never going to hit the target(never ever, not in a million tries, not a chance). How much realism does that add?

On the other hand, the, "the diagonal is the same as the orthogonal," assumption is nearly 50% off. This is equivalent to measuring 600m as being the same as ~850m. My fingers are better than that.

The square grid, or any grid, tends to constrain your design in unrealistic ways. The square page, and the need to fill it to the corners, is bad enough, let me tell you. Historically a ten foot grid means 10'x10' corridors. Have these people ever been inside a house? I'm supposed to believe I'm in a dank, claustrophobic cave that's roomier than my front hall? You know the corridors on the Enterprise(CT) were only eight feet wide? Even the 1.5m grid in the FASA Star Trek game were constraining. I miss that game.

The more I think about grids, the more I think, nononooo...

Why yes, I do enjoy my smilies...

[su_liam]

On the whole grid-constraints thing, I remember an FPS on the mac called Marathon. I learned after a lot of playing that the fastest way to run was turned at a 45º angle and sidestepping. The two movements added up, you see. If diagonals and orthogonals are counted the same, it pays to run diagonally as much as possible. Wow, the universe has a preferred frame of reference, and a preferred direction. You'd think someone would notice. Perhaps a fantasy world Pythagoras at the Agora. "The shortest distance between two points is a NE/SE/SW/NW diagonal. The cardinal directions are magically longer."

[RPMiller]

Why yes, I do enjoy my smilies...

And you are so good at using them too.

[NeonKnight]

The problem of the dungeon being constrained to the grid comes about BECAUSE of the grid system (IMHO).

Example:

In a game without miniature representation, it is easy enough to just draw something out and say: "This is roughly what it looks like"

But as soon as you put any sort of empirical measurement into the system it falls apart.

My character can move X amount on my turn, but your character moves Y on your turn, and the Monster/Villain moves Z on it's turn, can attack further, but your character can shoot a certain distance. How are these measured on the battlefield? Thus comes the grid (be it triangles, Octogons, Hex, Circles or whatever).

I see a grid system of either squares/Hexes as the most simple because I can 'eyeball' it on both the 'Big Table' with the miniatures set up and the adventure map. By utilising a grid (lets say Square), I can see in the adventure the room is 6 squares by 5 squares, with a 5 square long 1 square wide set of stairs entering the room on one side.

With the grid I can ensure the battleboard is identical to the adventure.

Now, as an aside, at GenCon last year for the BIG D&D 4e presentation, they had a temple set up in the hall with a map on the floor set up in the 5' squares the game is based on. I was talking with the then head of Organized Play, Ian Richards. I stated that in reality, saying that I occupy a 5'x5' square is a lot of territory to stand in, and in reality I can see just how 'ridiculous' it looked to say in a 10'x10' room only 4 people can fight.

But that is reality, and the game mechanics need to be addressed for an internal logic. Yes, the grid is unrealistic. Yes, dungeons built with rooms in variations of 5' increments is unrealistic. I know this, but the game needs it, to make sense. Otherwise, you start having incidents (regardless of how level headed everyone is) of people assuming they are here but another assumes they are there. Incidents of one combat 10 people involved in a melee in that 10x10 room and another incident where it's deemed you can't.

This is known as the game's internal logic, and is an example of what I have a problem with in the Spider-Man movies. In the comic strip he had web-shooters he loaded with compressed chemicals to make his webs. They felt that in the movies it would be a little hard for the 'fans' to handle is ole Petey could make a Chemical a 3M company cannot (that being synthetic spider silk), so they decided he produced it himself. WHAT A MINUTE! He's putting out each time he shoots his webbing the same amount of fluids and proteins as a normal male does each time he ejaculates (sorry, but it needed to be said). Now, how the hell does he keep his body full of nutirents and wtare etc without becoming extremely dehydrated after a simple fight. The internal logic has fallen apart.

SO, again, the D&D game system demands that buildings/dungeons be built along the 5' grid system as that is the internal logic of the game system. It also means no 'wasted space' as the game states a M sized creature can fight within a space smaller that 5' but is deemed 'squeezing' into the space and takes a penalty (see my point above about the reality of the 5x5 grid).

[RPMiller]

see content above

Points taken and understood but the logic is flawed, or rather altered, by an old way of thinking. If we think from the grid and optimization we are doing a disservice to the "reality" of the given situation. It is far more fun to deal with adverse circumstances and penalties and still succeed than to be given optimal situations and succeed.

If you draw your map "realistically" and without concern for the mechanics and then apply the mechanics you will have a much more interesting encounter that really tests the mechanics of the system to their fullest.

In my opinion if a system requires you to make that many adjustments to the setting to be able to work the system is flawed. The system should be able to handle any situation that might be presented. I suppose that is why I grew away from D&D and play systems like GURPS, Hero and others whose systems are far more forgiving and less dependent on things such as those you bring up.