|
Post by ashrothedm on Jan 10, 2015 1:32:30 GMT
@dndpaladin Grids have incremental polygonal boundaries, as do virtual grids. Moving to any possible location within your movement range is confined by the limited number of bounding polygons. There is a finite amount of space in a grid. If I have a move of 1, and I am in any shaped grid (which again requires non-overlapping boundaries), the number of locations that I could be would always be 1+sides. If it's triangular, 4. if it's rectangular, 5, hexagonal 7, etc. It's finite. In gridless, if you were to draw a virtual grid of all possible movement locations within the move range in an open field using a blue pen, the "grid" would be a perfectly filled in large blue circle, as the grid lines infinitely and fractally overlapped. If I have a move of 1, I can go in any direction and at any distance less than or equal to 1. No matter the grid you define virtually, you are not going to move 1/2". As soon as you do, you are not on a virtual grid, real grid, or otherwise. Your possible outcomes near infinity, and the greater the resolution of measured outcomes, the greater number of distances you can travel. it will follow a fractal and exponential increase as resolution increases. You should look up the math regarding the measuring of coastlines with fractals. The most amazing thing, is that the more finite the measurement increments of a coast becomes, the longer it is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradoxGridless, at best according to your description, is measured with fractals. As the measurement and size of the grid increments approaches 0, the possible outcomes of the "grid" approach infinity. In short, you're dividing the possible outcomes of movement by 0. 0 = gridless. gridless is infinite outcomes. The pattern of my circle only uses one speed to illustrate that the grid is compromised immediately by the base, as each degree of movement overlaps the base, Try drawing it out as I described and track movement by degrees and distance. Then move again. It's not practical to consider a grid virtually. For facing and all of that other jazz, the "grid" that follows the player could just as well be directional arcs on their base.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Jan 11, 2015 0:19:44 GMT
I often say there are two types of people in the world: Math people, and Word people.
Math people understand math, but more importantly they think in terms of math. Yhis can be beneficial in some respects, but limiting in others. Codified perspectives are not always good perspectives (though they can be).
Then there are Word people. Generally they toss the rules of codified perspective because what is valuable to them has more to do with communication and color...both visually and in description. They like adjectives. Again, valuable in some instances, less so in others.
I am NOT a math person. Just to be clear.
that being said, I would argue that real life can NOT be defined in terms of grids or math, on the grand scale (or the most miniscule scale), because it fails to account for perspective.
Simply put, you can not codify reality on a universal grid if anyone disagrees with said definition. I do. You can't apply a grid to many of the abstract beauties drawn from life. Math claims objectivity, but that objectivity fails when you realize there is no set definition of "normal."
Take the following math problem: 1+1=?
Ok, so what is the answer? 2?
Ok, maybe. But, as a Word person, I have to ask: what is each "one?"
Cookies? What kind? Chocolate chip? Oh, I hate those. To me, no chocolate chip cookie has the same value as an oatmeal cookie.
But if I must...
How many "chips" to each cookie? How about size (no. Of molecules if you want to be math oriented)? Texture?
Ok, now, one cookie is somehow going to be less weighted than the other. So which is "normal"? The smaller, or the bigger? U.less both are identical in mass, quality, etc (impossoble), you can NEVER make this equation equal 2 UNLESS you are purely looking at the abstract.
Which is not reality.
Now what if we compare two identical equations:
1+1=? (chocolate chip)
Vs
1+1=? (oatmeal)
In those two equations, the value of one (oatmeal cookies) is weighted and determined to be greater than the other (chocolate chip). Thus, the SAME equation has two vastly different values.
JUST FOR ME.
Now lets add in my friend...he likes chocolate chip more than oatmeal...but the difference to him is not as big as the difference is to me. Thus, the same equation has, now, four different results.
Isn't math funny?
Now, relating this to grids and gridless:
What if my grid is of a different scale than yours? Can we then interact together on the same plane? Don't we have to start getting into some serious metaphysics to make our interaction work then (philosophy, btw, usually falls under the word person purview)?
Or can we simply agree that trying to codify life, while an interesting exercise for some, is a bit impractical unless you get everyone to agree to your world view (you can't)?
In regards to gridless...this is the point. To create a better, seamless conversion of simulated play from a codified system to a system that feels and looks more natural by getting rid of the unrealistic and impractical "grid," which most everyone agrees is not represented in reality.
Now, will miniature usage in D&D ever be realistic or practical? No. But some feel strongly that removing the grid FEELS better and more conducive to play.
Others don't. that's an opinion, unquantifiable mathmatically.
Anyway, that's my weigh in...
|
|
|
Post by voduchyld on Jan 14, 2015 16:15:28 GMT
On a lighter note! I'm a word person, i love chocolate chip cookies... and i love gridless!
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jan 14, 2015 20:06:44 GMT
a grid is defined by a pattern, its not necessary to be squares or parallele lines, others you'd be saying that hexagone grids aren't grids ! a grid is a pattern, nothing more and nothing less.
dmnate, thats exactly what i said. one of the reason i removed the grid was the fact that my tiles were finished faser due to me not having to pass 15 minutes drawing a grid every single tiles. and as you said, which ws mentionned above a few times, i dont see any disadvantage per say except that maybe people are less precise int heir movements. aka make half an inch increments or adding half an inch more once in a while. so thats why i recommend it to everyone. a bit of advantage is still better then none.
one that was... so just to make sure, you are saying that if the majority says one thing, it makes that thing true ? so say i pay thousand people to say that you killed the guy, that will make it true cause the majority of the people says it is ? i understand your point of words versus math... unlike what people think im a word person as well... i hate maths, but im also realist to the point where i put everything down to their simple expressions. hences why im a word person.
ashro, you seem to be bogged down on the fact that a grid is always static while that is not true ! grids can change depending on the person itself. they are not forced to be static and the same for everyone. take yourself as an exemple, if i need you to calculate your distances between you and the corner of your house, how will you do it ? you will check upon a size you know and then calculate up to that point. thus ending up creating a grid, but that grid you just created, is from the point of origin, which is you. if for someone else the point of origin is himself, then both of your grids will be overlapping. but both of your grids will work still cause you both do not care for the others grid. hence grids are independant of each others.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 21:56:28 GMT
grid ɡrid/ noun 1. a framework of spaced bars that are parallel to or cross each other; a grating. "the metal grids had been pulled across the foyer" synonyms: grating, mesh, grille, gauze, lattice "a metal grid" 2. a network of lines that cross each other to form a series of squares or rectangles. "a grid of tree-lined streets" synonyms: network, matrix, reticulation "the grid of streets
Just saying. Show me hex in there?
|
|
|
Post by DMNate on Jan 14, 2015 22:37:16 GMT
Well, I think "a framework of spaced bars that are parallel to or cross each other" would fit in a definition of a hex-grid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 22:40:44 GMT
The crossing lines would be parallel which would form the square or rectangle. Edit: I get that of throwing those extra line segments in there it will make a hex on the board. However you are left with the outside edge half pieces. In no way am I saying a hex system doesn't work. I find it to be a cool concept.
|
|
|
Post by DMNate on Jan 14, 2015 23:18:44 GMT
Each line on a hex has a parallel line across from it. It never says that they must be perpendicular when they cross each other. And because they are actually bars (segments of lines) it doesn't matter that they aren't continuous.
Lol. Sorry if I'm coming across as a know-it-all. I just enjoy a good discussion. Honestly, I've never played on a hex-grid. I suspect it works pretty well. If I weren't using a grid-less form of play, I've probably quite like hexes. Although, I could see it being a HUGE pain to put a hex grid on everything. It's difficult enough as it is to get a square grid on things.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jan 15, 2015 5:51:49 GMT
you may throw me that shit about grid definition... but i'm so gonna throw you back off by using those synonyms which means exactly what i said.... a grid is a pattern !
so what you are saying is that a brick wall is a grid ?!! thanks for answering and giving me the point for saying a grid is a pattern reguardless of its design.
oh and by the way, you actually take a dump in a latice, you did know that did you ? so we do live in a grid !!!
|
|
|
Post by ashrothedm on Jan 15, 2015 17:25:53 GMT
take yourself as an exemple, if i need you to calculate your distances between you and the corner of your house, how will you do it ? This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of a grid. I would not use a grid at all to calculate my distance. I don't need to. I would measure a straight line to the corner. That does not create a grid, it is a 1 dimensional answer. I also don't need a grid to describe position, I only need a triangle, and it does not need to be a right triangle. If you want to discuss that in terms of grids to calculate my position, we can, but it has nothing to do with grids, and everything to do with triangles. I don't need an address/position within a grid to determine my distance from another object. I would take known distances and angles, and calculate the unknown distance. That's trigonometry and gridless, but for the sake of argument, I will have a virtual grid on me, and a virtual grid defined by the room. With a virtual grid, the size of the pattern remains constant, while your rotational angles may varied. The grid will contain integer increments within which to move. 1 space forward, two spaces left, etc. If I stand in the center of the room and face a corner, stacking the room's grid with my grid, I create a room full of triangles and octagons, though grid size would determine if those octagons are regular or more likely irregular. If the grid is the size of me, there are multiple positions in the room that I can stand by moving to any of my squares defined by my virtual grid. There are some positions clipped by the wall, where I would not fit into my grid. If I tried to move to one of those locations, which was an invalid location according to my starting point grid, and then the grid moved with me, to reestablish a new grid, then the first grid has been made irrelevant. The target grid is also irrelevant in that it was never a valid grid location defined by the first grid. What I am saying, and I do fully understand moving grids, is that if you have a token in a space within a virtual grid, and then you move anywhere except within the bounds of your grid, then the entire idea of the grid did nothing for you. A virtual grid that moves, yet does not constrain movement in any way, is a self defeating idea. To sum up: distance does not need a grid. Stacking virtual grids is messy, and has no apparent impact on the gameplay. Just move 2 inches in any direction and be done with it. No need to get grids involved, they have enough on their plate.
|
|
|
Post by pedrodevaca on Jan 15, 2015 17:55:32 GMT
The big bummer drawback of gridless is that it requires measuring sticks...
A square grid will always have issues along the diagonal axis. It results in clunky, unintuitive diagonal movement and cover/line of sight effects around certain corner shapes. However, it doesn't require a measuring stick!!! Yay?
Hexes fix the diagonal clunkiness of squares (Yay!) and also do not require a measuring stick (Yay?). However nothing in the real world is shaped like a hex, so hexes with terrain create all sorts of half hex and partial hex spaces along the margins of walls or features that become cumbersome to deal with and often require special rules to calculate line of sight and cover. Hexes work best in ocean, space or other "open field" settings that don't have much in the way of terrain.
and the winner is.....
in my opinion gridless RPG'ing is just far superior - more realistic, more intuitive, more open-ended, faster, fewer rules, gridless boards are easier to craft with better looking results.
|
|
|
Post by ashrothedm on Jan 15, 2015 17:59:08 GMT
I think hex grids work very well in organic terrain situations. Buildings and interiors generally just have a hard time being defined neatly into a hex grid.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jan 15, 2015 22:13:24 GMT
ashro, you missed the point entirely... when i asked you how you'd measure the distance between you and corner. yes you'd go directly. but nobody can say they have measures infused into them. we all take samples (aka measuring sticks) to calculate stuff, even in real life. say you'd take what you know... exemple your foot. then you'd calculate how many foot you'd need to make that distance. its how the mind operates. it cannot calculates distances based off nothing. it needs something to calculates its distances. thats the point im trying to make. you may think your brain doesn'T work like that, but it does. except that like a computer, it does super fast that you dont see it working as it should. but it does create its distances by using grid like calculation.
pedro, thats exactly why i skipped hexes... hexes have another problem, they can't go in straight lines. overall those reasons you mentionned are the reasons why i made the switch. - no more drawing lines on my tiles. (saves time) - no visual interference during play (better representation) - no more problem counting area effects.
aside from that i was already used to checking for line of sight directly from charcaters back. thats something that was easy to do with or without grid.
|
|
|
Post by ashrothedm on Jan 16, 2015 15:01:02 GMT
ashro, you missed the point entirely... when i asked you how you'd measure the distance between you and corner. yes you'd go directly. but nobody can say they have measures infused into them. we all take samples (aka measuring sticks) to calculate stuff, even in real life. say you'd take what you know... exemple your foot. then you'd calculate how many foot you'd need to make that distance. its how the mind operates. it cannot calculates distances based off nothing. it needs something to calculates its distances. thats the point im trying to make. you may think your brain doesn'T work like that, but it does. except that like a computer, it does super fast that you dont see it working as it should. but it does create its distances by using grid like calculation. You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I know here. You're talking about units. Math does not need units of measurement. Math is true without them. I need units to be able to tell you my result and for it to make any sense. The magic of a grid, is that length or distance is not important in the least. At any arbitrary size of grid, moving 2 spaces in a straight line will always be the same. You always move 2 units, and the distance is not relevant. Calculating length, and length alone, is a 1 dimensional operation. Two points creating a line segment defined only by length. There is no grid. There is only 1 dimension. There is only length. Computers also operate with this knowledge, but I'm assuming that by calculate, you mean when we position things in two dimensional space and tell them to determine the distance. When a computer works in one dimension, there is only length, and it never needs to measure, because it remembers all of the lengths inherently. We also have measures infused in us. Ask a golfer how far away from the pin they are. Some will be much more accurate than others. You can visualize distance. Play enough Warhammer or other tabletop wargame, and you'll see the infused measures in people. To me, it seems like we're having a disconnect because you are providing two dimensional scenarios and confining yourself to a two dimensional problem. To sum up: A measure is a three+ dimensional object that you are using to represent a 1 dimensional concept. The scenario seems solvable only by using all of the dimensions described, but that's not the case. Our minds work in a way that although we can't operate in a single dimension, we can visualize and use it to solve our problems. Back to where all of this started: If you are troubling the second dimension, you are not gridless. What makes the game (mathematically) gridless, is that movement is relative, using only line segments, which are defined by the length between two points (0 dimensional) This is the entire basis of why I am saying that virtual grids, grids, moving grids, or anything, doesn't really make a game gridless. It makes me question the review, since the second dimension is involved. Units are irrelevant. Describing the board at any given moment with grids will be messy at best.
|
|
|
Post by voduchyld on Jan 16, 2015 15:15:32 GMT
I have to agree with ashrothedm on this, if you put a second dimension other than length, it is gridless no more. Even if the grids are virtual or not, they're grids nonetheless. Edit: Did i mention that i love gridless? and chocolate chip cookies?
|
|
|
Post by pedrodevaca on Jan 16, 2015 15:46:57 GMT
Moving grids seem like the worst of two worlds..
But more importantly - HMMMM CHOCOLATE CHIPS!!!
|
|
ds615
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 5
|
Post by ds615 on Feb 11, 2015 22:58:42 GMT
Actually they are left with hit arcs. One would assume they cant strike behind That would depend on the creature I imagine. Humans, no. Hydras, I see no reason not. I am hearing this term "gridless" for the first time. I get the basic idea, but I don't understand what the "stick" is for. I'm assuming it's the same as hexless, but with squares? Then what we've always done is just run through the rules and replace the word "square" with the word "inch". Poof, done. Or is that not feasible in these rules?
|
|
|
Post by DMNate on Feb 12, 2015 0:14:45 GMT
The stick is used for measuring. If someone can move 30 feet, instead of moving 6 squares, they move 6 inches using the measuring stick. A ruler would work too. The stick is just convenient. Changing the word "square" to "inch" does work (usually).
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Feb 12, 2015 20:56:57 GMT
the 5e rules actually switched it around. they now speak of inches and do not explain the game in squares like previous editions. playing on a grid is now optionnal in 5e. there is no replacement made in fact. it always worked in inches. its just that they made a grid for you not to have to measure. hence why the gridded battle mats were made. when it comes to gridless it simply goes back to the inches it was used to be before the mats were used.
|
|