With D&D (especially in 4th edition) there are really 2 games going on simultaneously. One a battle map game of tactics, like chess say. The other is a role-playing game where a cooperative story is being generated. I’ve been thinking about the game and game styles recently especially in regards to our 4th edition discussions about diagonal movement and the function of the battle grid.

It was correctly pointed out that with diagonal movement one could avoid attacks of opportunity or reach places where one could not expect to reach with a given movement value.  While I considered this to be true it seemed immaterial to me though I couldn’t necessarily articulate why. I kept saying it doesn’t matter which is not a proper argue in itself though to me it was certainly true.

Why it doesn’t matter it occurs to me is that despite what your eyes are telling you, the squares don’t exist. The fireball spell occupies squares in the game but likely Garth the wise doesn’t see a square fire he sees a ball. I would opine that the fire extends somewhat into adjacent “squares” but not enough to ignite or harm. (Similar to a bar-be queuing accident which left a good friend sans eyebrows for the better part of a summer many years ago.)

Sure its all well and good we get that but if you take a string and measure distance on the map point a to c is much bigger than point a to b! Yes on the map it is but is it bigger by more than the variation in running speeds throughout people? I would wager my brother is a good deal faster and many of us. How much faster? Well enough so that I wouldn’t be surprised if he won a 12 square race by 2 squares. Depends on the competition but not when everyone moves 3 squares. You get my meaning. Still about the AOO sure sometimes you think you have an ideal position to block something but you don’t. They can sneak by you. There is enough variation in statistically similar people that would allow for unexpected results. (the Kansas City Royals beat the Yankees a couple of times last year)

Essentially the squares are there as a reference for what can be done not necessarily how it was done. If the goblin can move past your fighter and get to the archer in the back via some diagonal trickery it didn't necessarily mean that the goblin took a diagonal route only that he found a way to avoid the looming axe of Ragnor. Still perhaps the diagonal exposed the goblin to some other peril. Huzzah! While dodging past the fighter the goblin missteped and tumbled into a pit some 10 feet distant. Cinematic? Sure. Fun? Hope so.

In avoiding the fighter, you could say that the goblin was cunning rather than dexterous and marvel at his prowess or perhaps the fighter was distracted adjusting his stance at that exact moment. Depends on the naritive generated. This is really the junction of the two games. For example playing a role of the intelligent elf wizard might make use of diagonals (an “out of character” implement of “in character” effects) while a player (just as intelligent) decides his role of bumbling fighter wouldn’t make use of the “diagonal advantage.” Both players are using the battle map game to help articulate through actions their character.

Essentially the “cutting the square” inconsistencies of the diagonal advantage are a way to inject additional “role-playing” in the game. I may be reaching but then again I never liked speed factors or weapon vrs. armor type adjustments in Role-playing games.

I think the difference lies in your belief that a square on the gaming grid is a discreet space with any implications on reality. In fact it seems more like a construct to provide relative space not necessarily absolute distance.  In a 10 by 10 room more than 4 people can move about freely. I think the variation between individual performance can more than account for the difference in ground garnered from diagonal moving.  While the rules allow for AoO if passing by adjacent squares given a wide open route it is not only conceivable but likely that a lucky or quick individual might be able to slip past a threatened square unmolested without resorting to acrobatics.  So the 4 diagonal squares may be a faster goblin, may be a misjudgment on the characters part of the actual distance, maybe a combination of both but if you know that diagonal movement is possible and the battle grid shows 4 squares then whats the functional difficulty? Watch how many open field tackles are missed by the Saints or how many times people get blown by in the nba for ideas of how sucessfull the half-way to the door examples would be.

I guess the question is how does  movement along a diagonal prevent you from understanding  how the world works? In chess you may find it surprising that a king and two knights can’t force mate on a king on an otherwise empty board. Does knowing this now make chess any less of a tactical game? Probably not but knowing it will make you somewhat of a better player. In this role-playing game you now have an additional tool to use to in role-playing battle grid tactics.

“I’m a clumsy oaf.” --I don’t move diagonals.
“I have cat like reflexes and move surprisingly fast and gracefully.” --Diagonals are us. And some points between the two extremes.

It sounds like one of the major problems people have with the diagnoal movement is the ability get around an apponent and avoid attacks of opportunity.  While I generaly think people get too bent out of shape over this issue, I have been tinkering with some ideas. 

First of all, a character who is not directly engaged in combat and is guarding/blocking an area should threaten an area two squares out instead of one.

The second idea I lifted from a Shadowrun rule book.  If a character attempts to get by an unengaged apponent, the opponent gets an attack of oportunity.  If the attack of opportunity is successfull, not only does the character take damage, it is also stopped from getting past the apponent.

I think these two rules would solve most of the issues that come up with diagonal movement.

The avoidance of AoOs is just a symptom of the real problem.  The map is supposed to help you visualize the environment so that you can better play the character.  If movement doesn't follow the simple rules forced by euclidean geometry, then how can you ever move tactically?

Complicated rules to make the game more realistic can bog down the game but this rule is so simple and is measurably better I don't know why they dropped it.

Really I like out house rule better which is when you move one movement (less than 10 squares) you do 1-2-1-2-1 but more than that you use the BAR (big ass ruler) and measure it.  The BAR is simple since 1 square = 1 inch.

  If the Grid where say circles (as the bases in the miniatures you are supposed to use) and the left over corner space disregarded as immaterial space would there still be an issue? My point is not that 1-2-1or any other more mathematical system may not be more realistic it is that if you are simply modifying the nature of the reality discontinuity. What does movement through difficult terrain on diagonals do? 2-4-2 or 2-3-2-4? What about Slowed character?

Using a system where squares of similar nature count as different values depending on their location in the move count effects relative speeds. For example a move of 4 and 5 cover the same distance on the diagonal. When the difference in move values between a highly armored knight and say a gymnast is one square. Movement on a diagonal using the 1-2-1 system would eliminate the difference in relative speed. Moving the system to a 1-2-1, 1-2-1 simply moves the numbers where the system inequality becomes apparent. The fact that double moves are common as well adds to the number of situations where relative speed differences disappear. Couple that with the fact that pushes, pulls, slides are common tactics in 4th ed and we can create any number of situations where diagonal movement alterations create problematic situations.


The question is should we consider a square as a definite 5 by 5 area and try to draft an equitable system to account for every situation or should we consider a square a undefined area roughly 25 square feet and say movement through this area in any direction is equal? If we consider map Squares as regions and not as exact 5x5 squares. They become approximation of space not a static unit of measure.  This also addresses the question why every space in the world was built by master masons to be exactly divisible by 5 ft in every direction.


For me I am much more sensitive to relative speeds for game balance and playability reasons. I agree that 4th ed is "dumbed down." But so was 3rd over "advanced" and certainly so was Basic over the chainmail rules. To become more accessible the rules have been consistently moving away from a "simulation of fantasy battles" to a character driven/fantasy game. 4th Ed is a different game, more casual in some respects and more restrictive in others. If it were released by someone else as something else say as (advanced tunnels and trolls.) I'm not sure what my feeling would be towards it. I doubt I would have bought the set of books.

The game now presents a new environment to game in. When I first started playing a good player was someone who brought their character to life, a good storyteller. Now a good player may mean a very different thing depending on your audience. I think the game now has much broader appeal especially to the Guitar Hero generation.