Quote from: Jaeger on June 25, 2021, 05:51:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 08:28:22 PM
Smaller numbers.

Blows me away every time I see people stating a subjective preference as an objective fact.

For d20 games the industry standard is now ascending AC.

Unless you are appealing to a specific audience that wants the old standard - It's like making a game that uses a d20 for task resolution but is not a d20 game – you are limiting your audience.

Of course people can make the game they want and no one can stop them.

You can make an argument along those lines. It's a half decent argument. It's an argument I would have made, except I wouldn't have included that appeal to conformity.

But that's not the argument you made.  This is the argument you made:

Quote from: Jaeger on June 24, 2021, 07:45:32 PM
Unless you are specifically cloning a pre 3e edition of D&D; there is no reason not to use the current gaming standard of Ascending AC in your d20 based game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Blows me away every time I see this.

And that's still completely wrong. There are valid arguments in both directions.

Quote from: Pat on June 25, 2021, 05:55:55 PM
...

But that's not the argument you made.  This is the argument you made:

Quote from: Jaeger on June 24, 2021, 07:45:32 PM
Unless you are specifically cloning a pre 3e edition of D&D; there is no reason not to use the current gaming standard of Ascending AC in your d20 based game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Blows me away every time I see this.

And that's still completely wrong. There are valid arguments in both directions.

You are correct in that I did specifically say "no reason" before I properly thought through the business side of things.

That is on me. Because there is a case for appealing to a specific audience that likes THACO/descending AC..

Quote from: Jaeger on June 25, 2021, 06:22:31 PMBecause there is a case for appealing to a specific audience that likes THACO/descending AC..

If you're interested, Delta's D&D Hotspot does a good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the d20 system, THAC0, and Target 20 that brings in some elements that I'm familiar from other sources, like UX theory. Basically, it's a trade off between what we know about how people process numbers. One of the strengths of descending AC is it primarily deals with single digit numbers, which are a lot easier for most people to process than the two-digit numbers that appear in the d20 system. The biggest hit against descending AC is the negative numbers, which tend to throw people for a loop, especially if it involves subtracting negatives (which it does in THAC0). But THAC0 is just one specific implementation. The original method was a table lookup, which doesn't have that weakness. In fact, the table lookup replaces not just subtraction, but also addition, with a simple comparison operation -- you just skim your finger down a row looking for a number to beat. From a processing standpoint, that's hard to top. It does require a table, but from the player side you don't need a whole matrix, just a single line, which is trivial to put on a character sheet. It's also worth noting that negative ACs didn't actually exist in the first implementation of descending AC. In OD&D, there are no negative ACs. Magical bonuses and the like affect hit rolls, not AC. (This changed in the Supplements.)

It ultimately boils down to preference, but we can take a hard look at why people have the preferences they do. Ascending AC is certainly more popular today, and it does have a number of virtues. It's probably safe to say it's better than THAC0, for instance. But it becomes much more ambiguous when compared to table lookups, the Target 20 system, or systems that avoid negative ACs. Those all have strengths that ascending systems do not. So there are valid reasons for preferring both, beyond simple familiarity and custom.

I'm still holding out for a setting book for Hyperborea. It's one of the more interesting settings.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 25, 2021, 05:51:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 08:28:22 PM
Smaller numbers.

Blows me away every time I see people stating a subjective preference as an objective fact.

For d20 games the industry standard is now ascending AC.

Unless you are appealing to a specific audience that wants the old standard - It's like making a game that uses a d20 for task resolution but is not a d20 game – you are limiting your audience.

Of course people can make the game they want and no one can stop them.

Quote from: JeffB on June 25, 2021, 09:23:38 AM
ASSH is specifically inspired by and a further development of AD&D 1st edition. There was absolutely zero reason to use ascending AC.

Then he is making the game for a specific audience, which is his privilege.

Quote from: JeffB on June 25, 2021, 09:23:38 AM
It was not meant to be a "retroclone" with some modern sensibilities thrown in. Tits on a bull.

I guess I fall into the pro-ascending camp. It is just more intuitive for those who did not come up with descending being the standard.

I just don't see how it would be titties on a bull to go with ascending AC.

If you are an AD&D disciple writing a game that is a further development of that system, ascending AC is as useless as tits on a bull. Just like adding a skill point system, Prestige Classes and feats would be. 

FWIW- I prefer ascending AC. I change everything to it. It's easy to flip on the fly. I have done Deltas's Target 20, and that's IME a fun way to do descending AC (and why it never made it into published OD&D when it's obvious it was the intention early on in  development, I guess we will never know)

Quote from: Mind Crime on June 25, 2021, 09:25:15 PM
I'm still holding out for a setting book for Hyperborea. It's one of the more interesting settings.

I believe that J. Talanian mentioned that there might be a separate map book and gazetteer. I hope so, I love the setting but that map can be hard to navigate.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 25, 2021, 05:51:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 08:28:22 PM
Smaller numbers.

Blows me away every time I see people stating a subjective preference as an objective fact.

For d20 games the industry standard is now ascending AC.

Unless you are appealing to a specific audience that wants the old standard - It's like making a game that uses a d20 for task resolution but is not a d20 game – you are limiting your audience.

Of course people can make the game they want and no one can stop them.

Quote from: JeffB on June 25, 2021, 09:23:38 AM
ASSH is specifically inspired by and a further development of AD&D 1st edition. There was absolutely zero reason to use ascending AC.

Then he is making the game for a specific audience, which is his privilege.

Quote from: JeffB on June 25, 2021, 09:23:38 AM
It was not meant to be a "retroclone" with some modern sensibilities thrown in. Tits on a bull.

I guess I fall into the pro-ascending camp. It is just more intuitive for those who did not come up with descending being the standard.

I just don't see how it would be titties on a bull to go with ascending AC.

I don't really know if you could classify ASSH as a d20 game. Yes, it uses the d20 for attacks, but task resolution builds on and expands the old (x) in (x)  (2) in (d6) chance for its general task resolution, when the DM calls for one.

I don't really think ASSH can be classified as 1E or d20, it most definitely takes queues from both game types though.

I have the boxed set, the 2nd Ed Hardback, all the modules and plan to go in on 3e.  It's worth every penny.  Not only does Talanian get Sword and Sorcery and the source material, he's also a class act.

Quote from: Pat on June 24, 2021, 08:28:22 PM

Unless you are specifically cloning a pre 3e edition of D&D; there is no reason not to use the current gaming standard of Ascending AC in your d20 based game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Blows me away every time I see this.

Smaller numbers.

Blows me away every time I see people stating a subjective preference as an objective fact.

Boy, me too.  I hate that almost as much as people using popularity as an Appeal to Authority in an attempt to pass their subjective preference off as objective fact.   

Quote from: crkrueger on June 27, 2021, 06:28:12 AM
I have the boxed set, the 2nd Ed Hardback, all the modules and plan to go in on 3e.  It's worth every penny.  Not only does Talanian get Sword and Sorcery and the source material, he's also a class act.

This.

Quote from: crkrueger on June 27, 2021, 06:34:00 AM
Boy, me too.  I hate that almost as much as people using popularity as an Appeal to Authority in an attempt to pass their subjective preference off as objective fact.   

Jaeger had the grace to paddle that back in a latter post.

(Also, your quotes got combined.)

I've got the basics in pdf, but my group hasn't had the interest to play it yet.  From what I've read, it looks like a fun system to play.

Just an FYI the Hyperborean Kickstarter has launched.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jeffreytalanian/hyperborea-3e

Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on July 02, 2021, 07:42:33 AM
Just an FYI the Hyperborean Kickstarter has launched.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jeffreytalanian/hyperborea-3e

Nice.  Looks like they have crushed their goal as well.

Quote from: The Spaniard on July 02, 2021, 07:55:36 AM

Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on July 02, 2021, 07:42:33 AM
Just an FYI the Hyperborean Kickstarter has launched.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jeffreytalanian/hyperborea-3e

Nice.  Looks like they have crushed their goal as well.

  Goddamn it.  I said I wouldnt do any more kickstarters.  I have a few days to back away from my overwhelming desire to dive in on it.  I have a feeling in a week I am still going to go in on it.  I do wonder about the odds of them delivering that dec 2021 though.