Thinking about House of Leaves recently made me revisit a train of thought I’ve often engaged in: Specifically, that there are a lot of architectural grandeurs that are avoided by players who use battlemaps because they’re difficult to map on a two-dimensional grid or table. (In fact, even if you don’t use battlemaps I suspect that there remains a subconscious aversion to such forms because most adventure prep still defaults to the presentation of a two-dimensional map.)

A significant example of this, for me, are large helical ramps or stairs:

Small spiral stairs, of course, are easy enough to include. But what I’m talking about are helical structures large enough that you could wage a massive melee on them. Perhaps one could do it with 3D terrain, but it seems far too complicated to render on a 2D battlemap. Which is too bad, because there’s a lot of cool stuff that can happen on a helix:

Awaking from a dream this morning, however, I realized that there was a way that one could map such a structure:

There are two tricks to using this map. First, a square is directly above the identical square two half-circles to the right (and below the identical square two half-circles to the left). Once you grok that, it shouldn’t be too hard to eyeball which sections of the ramp can reasonably see each other. (It will also let you easily calculate distance on the horizontal plane.)

Second, if the ramp has a 1:1 ratio of descent (i.e., it’s descending at a 45-degree angle), then horizontal distance on the map equates to vertical distance in the game world. For example, assuming 1 square = 5′:

The point marked B on this map is 120 feet directly below point A.

Of course, a 1:1 ratio of descent represents a fairly steep ramp. But you can set any ratio of descent you like and then just divide the distance. For example, if you had a more gradual ramp with a 1:4 ratio of descent you could just divide 120 feet by four and calculate that the vertical distance between point A and point B is 30 feet.

Once you’ve got both your vertical and horizontal plane distances, of course, you can use the Aerial Distances table on page 78 of Legends & Labyrinths to figure out the actual point-to-point distance. (Or you could calculate it using the Pythagorean Theorem, of course.)

It should be noted that this method isn’t perfect. Because each “half” of the ramp is horizontally inverted there’s a definite spatial distortion involved. For example, if you follow the outside curve of the ramp you’ll discover that it becomes the inner curve and then switches back to the outer curve. On 10′-wide ramp like this one the distortion is largely irrelevant (it can be corrected by taking a single diagonal move at each inversion point), but as your ramps get wider the distortion will become more pronounced.

But since I’m not modeling racecars seeking the inner track, I’m not too concerned.

More problematic would be creatures flying up or down through the space in the center of the helix.  For this, you’ll want to calculate the vertical drop between each half-circle. (For example, on the map above with a 1:4 ratio of descent it would be 10′. Now you know that if the creature flies up 10′, you can move them into the identical position in the next half-circle.)

(1) Raising the price of your streaming service because Hollywood is ratcheting up the licensing fees for their content by 1,000% (or more) is just the sad reality of doing business. And customers who can’t understand that just aren’t being rational.

(2) With that being said, trying to sell a price hike to your customers as actually being a great thing for them was a pretty stupid thing to do. The better approach would have been to be frank about the realities of what was going on: “Look, we have to raise the price you’re paying because Hollywood is raising the price we’re paying. What we’re going to do, though, is give you more control over how much you’re paying by letting you pay for just the services you want. If the new price Hollywood is demanding for streaming content is too high, then you can cut back to just disc delivery.”

After fumbling the initial delivery, your best bet would have been to offer your customers (including those who recently canceled) a 3- or 6-month discount as an apology while offering a more coherent and honest explanation of what was happening.

(3) What you really, really shouldn’t do is try to somehow “make up” for your previous mistake by splitting your service into two different companies which will not share queues, ratings, recommendations, or billing. That’s a plan which significantly reduces the utility of your service for your customers.

(4) The only thing stupider than that would be if you split the service, reduce the value of the service to your customers, and then pretend that this is all supposed to somehow be a great thing for them.

I mean that would be really, really stupid. That would be making the exact same mistake you just got raked over the coals for just a couple weeks ago.

… oh dear.

I actually look at the price increase and shrugged: It was more expensive (although nobody’s price “doubled” despite the ridiculous rhetoric posted by the math-challenged; and unless you were already in their lowest possible tier of service the hike was not outrageously large), but I was still getting a ton of value for the price they were asking.

But the split in services? It’s almost certainly going to result in me canceling at least one of the services.

Google Reader is telling me that all the hot, hip kids of the RPG blogosphere are currently engaged in a tag team match to determine who can present a complete adventure in the absolute minimal amount of space possible: Customized monster icons, textless adventures, player handouts that that double as adventure outlines, revised old school module maps with “everything” you need annotated onto the page… It’s all amazing stuff.

I’ve decided to join in the fun by devising an alphanumeric coding system: You don’t need a map or any pictorial reference at all. The alphanumeric code in the first row tells you the size of the room, the exits and entrances, and where those exits/entrances lead. The second row codes the contents of the associated room. (A null value indicates an empty chamber.)

ANGK19MW925MMM24101LHLA
00F00AB00000LM8620090000Z

As you can see, this is one heck of rip-roaring dungeon.

(This may sound weird coming from a guy who just released Legends & Labyrinths, but: Minimalism for the sake of minimalism is simply self-defeating at a certain point.)

I just had one of those moments when you realize that not everyone has noticed the same thing you have.

Tip for speeding up combat resolution in 3rd Edition: Once you’ve identified the AC you’re trying to hit, figure out what number you need to roll on the d20 in order to hit it. Now you don’t need to do math every time you roll: You just look at the die and instantly know whether you hit or not.

The more casual version of that is “lowest threshold”: Did you hit last time? Did you roll equal to or higher than that roll? Then you hit again. Did you roll lower? Then do the math (and, if you hit after doing the math, you’ve set a new lowest threshold).

This obviously doesn’t work if your attack bonuses or the target’s AC are shifting a lot. But 9 times out of 10, those numbers are consistent and the method works just fine.

Also: Roll your damage dice at the same time. If you hit, the damage is right there. If you didn’t, then you just ignore them.

(click for legible size)

I still can’t decide if it bugs me or not that alignment takes up something like 1/5th of the chapter on character creation (simply due to the bulk of information being conveyed). It was originally meant to be relegated to a sidebar, but it actually proved too large for that and ended up getting all of page 11 to itself.

Of course, that’s partly because the information on alignment needs to be entirely contained in Chapter 1, whereas the rest of Chapter 1 references players out to the more detailed descriptions of ability scores, classes, races, and the like found elsewhere in the rulebook.

A couple of other options I entertained:

(1) Removing alignment entirely. I would have left “good” and “evil” descriptors in for spells and extraplanar creatures, but the basic concept of PCs having an “alignment” would have been gone. Ultimately, I decided this was too radical a departure.

(2) Just describing the two axes of alignment — good vs. evil; law vs. chaos — in general terms and not discussing each combination in detail. (This might have included an old school, x-y axis chart of alignments.) A remnant of this remains in the sidebar on page 11, but what I discovered was that new players weren’t grokking the system. They were asking a lot of clarifying questions, and that’s usually an indication that the rulebook isn’t doing its job.

What do you think?