GreenTongue
 member, 951 posts
 Game Archaeologist
Thu 1 Apr 2021
at 17:17
Cultural issues
In reply to Piestar (msg # 1802):

That is a way to "tag" the chat to be able to follow it but, yeah, "I'd like to know too" would be better.
Piestar
 member, 854 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Thu 1 Apr 2021
at 20:04
Cultural issues
In reply to GreenTongue (msg # 1803):

I usually just drop a post that says 'following' but you can actually turn on notifications without leaving any post at all.
Piestar
 member, 870 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Sat 1 May 2021
at 10:07
Cultural issues
Why exactly do so many people seem to dislike the descending AC numbers of early D&D? THAC0 seems so simple.
Jewwk of Shuu
 member, 41 posts
 "I cast: Pro: Sandwich"
 GM: "But WHY?!"
Sat 1 May 2021
at 11:42
Cultural issues
In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):

lol, I still have trouble not trying to subtract AC from THAC0 in 5e...we seem the minority, though. ;)
DeeYin
 member, 29 posts
Sat 1 May 2021
at 16:52
Cultural issues
In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):

I also like the elegance of THAC0, and prefer descending AC. But for most people, adding is easier than adding and subtracting, so can certainly see why they prefer ascending AC.

While I wish no harm to anyone, when someone says they cannot understand THAC0 at all, I always imagine their head would explode if they were to look at a golf leader board.
ShadoPrism
 member, 1376 posts
 OCGD-Obsessive-Compulsive
 Gamer-Disorder
Sat 1 May 2021
at 21:50
Cultural issues
From what I have seen, they just keep trying to reinvent the horse with AD&D. so to speak.
SunRuanEr
 subscriber, 387 posts
Sat 1 May 2021
at 22:02
AD&D
Well, if they don't keep trying to reinvent the horse, how else can they keep strong-arming people into buying new "improved" horses?

It's obnoxious behaviour, really. I'm all for new content from the games I play, but 'new content' isn't/shouldn't be 'an entirely new way of doing things that renders everything you already own useless and in need of replacement'. They might as well just scream 'GIVE US YOUR MONEY!' directly.
pawndream
 member, 191 posts
Sat 1 May 2021
at 22:45
Cultural issues
In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):

I started with descending AC and didn't think anything of it. No issues. That's just the way it was and I never gave it too much though. In 1e, I used a to-hit matrix. In 2e I never warmed to THAC0 and usually made a to-hit matrix so I didn't have to do the math.

3e came along and brought ascending AC. To-hit charts were no longer needed. Adding numbers to a dice roll and comparing it to a target number is intuitive; whereas, before you would add numbers to a d20 roll (to hit modifers, magic bonuses, etc.) to come up with a total number. Then, with that total number, you reverse engineer the number you need to hit descending AC. It's an unnecessary step. That's why I dislike it. I can do the math. I just don't want to.

I view it similar to how when I was a kid I used to type reports on a manual typewriter. At some point, I got an electric typewriter, and then a word processing program. When I didn't know about electric typewriters or word processors, manual typewriters were fine. Not so great after, other than for nostalgia.
praguepride
 member, 1803 posts
 "Hugs for the Hugs God!"
 - Warhammer Fluffy-K
Sun 2 May 2021
at 00:44
Cultural issues
The problem with THAC0 is that you want an overall direction with your game for easy reference. Positives are good, negatives are bad (or vice versa). In AD&D it was kind of a hodgepodge where you wanted to roll high but you also wanted your THAC0 to be low. In a vacuum it's not hard but remember that a +1 to sword is good but +1 to armor is bad kind of wrecks people.
Piestar
 member, 871 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Sun 2 May 2021
at 01:13
Re: Cultural issues
DeeYin:
In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):
While I wish no harm to anyone, when someone says they cannot understand THAC0 at all, I always imagine their head would explode if they were to look at a golf leader board.


Hahaha, too funny. I like that thought... and scoring for bowling must really confuse them.
Piestar
 member, 872 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Sun 2 May 2021
at 01:16
Re: Cultural issues
praguepride:
The problem with THAC0 is that you want an overall direction with your game for easy reference. Positives are good, negatives are bad (or vice versa). In AD&D it was kind of a hodgepodge where you wanted to roll high but you also wanted your THAC0 to be low. In a vacuum it's not hard but remember that a +1 to sword is good but +1 to armor is bad kind of wrecks people.


That might be the crux of the difference for me, I like high and low to be good in different situations. Stat checks were a breeze because you wanted to roll under your stat number, obviously the higher your ability the easier it was to pass. I do on occasion run in to games who can't quite wrap their heads around that, but I always liked it.
Zag24
 supporter, 688 posts
Sun 2 May 2021
at 04:41
Constantly the victim lol
Haha!  Back when I was young and stupid (early 1980's), I built my own system, because I was unsatisfied with existing ones.  In my system, everything was a percentage roll.  When you started out, still low level characters, you wanted to roll under your skill percentage, and under half or a third of your percentage was a critical.  But once you were veterans facing tougher opponents, you would have to roll under half just to connect, and under a third or a fourth to do real damage.  The idea was that really great characters would eventually get their skills into the 200's, such that rolling under a quarter of their ability was not incredibly surprising, and they even would roll under a sixth or and eighth sometimes.

It was horrendously complicated, as you might have guessed.  We played it for about 4 sessions and everyone revolted, sending us back to AD&D with its THAC0's.
Piestar
 member, 873 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Sun 2 May 2021
at 04:58
Constantly the victim lol
In reply to Zag24 (msg # 1814):

Very creative of you, given time I'll bet it could have become something really great. Just think, with more supportive friends, you might be putting out 5th Ed. versions of your books.

I always enjoyed having a reason to have a variety of dice though, systems can become too bare-bones, it seems to me.
praguepride
 member, 1804 posts
 "Hugs for the Hugs God!"
 - Warhammer Fluffy-K
Sun 2 May 2021
at 12:46
Constantly the victim lol
Someone pointed out to me that a d20 is actually a really simple approximation of a percentage roll because 5% increments are easy to wrap your head around.

It's so obvious but it also kind of blew my mind when I realized that was why D&D switched to a d20 system as opposed to a d100 percentage you see in other systems.

Nobody cares about the difference between 84% and 83% but the difference 85% and 80% that is something you can intuitively understand.
Piestar
 member, 879 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Sun 2 May 2021
at 12:49
Constantly the victim lol
In reply to praguepride (msg # 1816):

You never played rolemaster I am guessing. The difference between 84% and 83% could be significant! I loved that rule set, but could find no one willing to play it. Sad.
Zag24
 supporter, 689 posts
Sun 2 May 2021
at 20:29
Skin in the Game
Piestar:
Very creative of you, given time I'll bet it could have become something really great. Just think, with more supportive friends, you might be putting out 5th Ed. versions of your books.

Heh heh, no.  One good aspect of the system was that there was no damage roll.  Your weapon did a base amount of damage -- ranging from 2 points for fist to 8 points for great axe -- and then you multiplied that times the "crit number" which was the reciprocal of the fraction you had rolled under.   For the less math-inclined, if you were under 1/2 your percent, your crit number is 2.  If you were under 1/5 your percent, your crit number is 5.  Maximum crit number is 10, so that a roll of 1 doesn't mean 60 times damage.

Armor worked like damage resistance, so would be subtracted from the roll.  That's why, when fighting a dragon, say, with an armor of 15, you can't even scratch him with a crit value of 1 or 2, you need to be rolling triple or quadruple damage to hurt him.

This much wouldn't have been so bad.  However, I also tried to incorporate hit locations a la early Runequest.  It was a hot mess.
V_V
 member, 937 posts
 Resting. I hope to find
 peace and vigor return.
Mon 3 May 2021
at 00:03
Constantly the victim lol
In reply to praguepride (msg # 1816):

Don't go to a casino. ;) I'm being cheeky. I agree with you to an extent. A 10% chance and a 5% chance are very different, as is a 95% and 90% chance. Heck even a 55% chance is significant over 50%. I've long since viewed d20 as % based. That's just how I process dice systems. So it was insane the number of people I had to argue with (kindly) over the fact rolling a 10 9and that succeeding) was a 55% chance of success. It took a long time, for such a simple process of saying, "Yes, 10 is half of 20, but 9 fails, 10 doesn't". This was critical in scenes where the DC was obvious.

CoK (or CoC) use % systems and I liked that aspect...just preferred the former's tone and intention.
Piestar
 member, 880 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Mon 3 May 2021
at 01:16
Skin in the Game
In reply to Zag24 (msg # 1818):

I don't know, sounds awesome to me. I suspect every really good game started as a hot mess.
V_V
 member, 939 posts
 Resting. I hope to find
 peace and vigor return.
Mon 3 May 2021
at 07:20
Skin in the Game
Look at D&D! Wait...I'm thinking...
Piestar
 member, 893 posts
 once upon a time...
 ...there was a little pie
Mon 3 May 2021
at 07:33
Constantly the victim lol
In reply to V_V (msg # 1819):

Funny how people don't seem to grasp the basic numbers behind D&D. I remember a debate I was having with a guy over what you should be able to accomplish with a natural twenty. He wanted the result to be miraculous. I suggested that miracles shouldn't happen, five percent of the time. He clearly had never connected a natural 20 with 5%.
I always like the idea that special results should come from extended rolls, and second natural twenty, or some such, for a special result.
Sir Swindle
 member, 314 posts
Mon 3 May 2021
at 11:45
Re: Constantly the victim lol
Piestar:
In reply to praguepride (msg # 1816):

You never played rolemaster I am guessing. The difference between 84% and 83% could be significant! I loved that rule set, but could find no one willing to play it. Sad.

I put a 5% tolerance on all absolutes. no one (-+5%) cares about 1% and 1% never (-+5%) matters. Also the universe is empty (-+5%) and no portion (-+5%) of the earths population lives in Nebraska.
Ski-Bird
 subscriber, 168 posts
Mon 3 May 2021
at 12:23
Skin in the Game


^^ This reminds me of when I had to learn about statistics, chi squares and margins of error.  Up until that point, I thought I was fair-to-middling at math.  It just about broke my brain.
V_V
 member, 940 posts
 Resting. I hope to find
 peace and vigor return.
Mon 3 May 2021
at 13:56
Re: Constantly the victim lol
In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 1823):

*Literally smh* *sigh*
Ski-Bird
 subscriber, 169 posts
Mon 3 May 2021
at 14:11
Cultural issues
Zag24:
One good aspect of the system was that there was no damage roll.


Hot mess aside, I think the idea of fixed damage multiplied by how well you hit is pretty neat.  Easily scalable too (as in the dragon example).
Sir Swindle
 member, 315 posts
Mon 3 May 2021
at 14:12
Re: Constantly the victim lol
V_V:
In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 1823):

*Literally smh* *sigh*

Hang with too many pedants.

Me: "All crows are black."
Jerks: "Well actually albino crows exist."
Me: "STFU you know that all means all -+5%! Now give me all the chips.
Jerks: "Can..."
Me: "YES YOU CAN HAVE A FEW!"