Quote from: JeremyR;729234Ascending armor class and attack bonus was apparently first used in Gamma World 4th edition, around 1990. It very easily could have been in 2e...

Actually, GW4 is '92, postdating AD&D2 by three years.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729209That's still an entirely superfluous extra step that doesn't actually do anything. It's only there to make the process more complicated with absolutely no gameplay payoff. So why is it there?

Because in 1974 a boxed set game was released that featured that mechanic and it persisted through several later editions.

Why does chess have en passant? Bishops move diagonally? Come on you are not that dense. The game is what it is because somebody liked how it played. D&D is not exception.

Descending AC persists because people like it for every reason conceivable. Ascending AC caught on because of people like you and me who like it elegance in saving a step. Neither is good or bad it just personal preference like all choices of mechanics.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729209Secondly, how exactly do you find descending AC easier? That means comparing two variable values as opposed to comparing one variable value to a static value (ascending AC). Yes you're dealing with smaller numbers, but you're either operating on both sides of the equation, or taking the extra step of cross referencing on a chart.

Don't be so dense, you play imaginary characters in a game use some of that skill and imagine the point of view of a player who likes descending AC. Then you will have one of the many possible answers.

Quote from: estar;729241Because in 1974 a boxed set game was released that featured that mechanic and it persisted through several later editions.

Why does chess have en passant? Bishops move diagonally? Come on you are not that dense. The game is what it is because somebody liked how it played. D&D is not exception.

Descending AC persists because people like it for every reason conceivable. Ascending AC caught on because of people like you and me who like it elegance in saving a step. Neither is good or bad it just personal preference like all choices of mechanics.

This basically nails it. Most people go for ascending AC these days. That is unlikely to change. While i prefer Thac0 personally, i think switching to ascending was a good decision for 3E and later d20 products. But that is different from saying descending AC is a bad mechanic in isolation. I think target audience and goals matter here. For example, if someone wants to create a product that is easily useable with the backlog of TSR modules and intended to appeal to people who like older editions, descending AC is a good design choice. If you are making a game for the widest current fandbase possible, intended for people who mainly play 3E or 4E, then it would likely be a bad choice. Mechanics are just tools, and unless the tool itself is inherently broken (the math doesn't work for instance) then what matters is whether it suited for a particular task or project, not whether it is bad in some abstract sense because of arbitrary criteria like "fewest steps", or "more intuitive". If fewest steps possible and more intuitive are part of your design goal, then that is different. And at the end of the day youhave to make room for the fact, that design goals only go so far. At a certain point people play the game and what matters is whether they like it. That may mean keeping mechanics that go against a stated design goal in some cases.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729210Try reading the thread.

Nahh, I'd rather just ask for the citations to the study you did.

Quote from: J Arcane;729238Actually, GW4 is '92, postdating AD&D2 by three years.

First edition gamma world had an elegant hit chart for weapon type referenced with armor type. It was way simpler than 1e dn's weapon type vc armor type chart. In my experience, the degree of 'extra complexity' in gamma world or thaco dnd is trivial compared to the extra math in 3X.

Essentially a simpler system with a trivial extra step is still simpler than a more crunchy system that has one less trivial step.

But really it is more about what one is used to, and familiarity.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729237My understanding is they considered using it, but didn't do so because they wanted it to be backwards compatible with 1E.

This is correct.  I listened to a podcast a couple months ago where they interviewed Zeb (I think it was him), and he said, "Of course we considered ascending armor class.  Do people think that thought never crossed our minds?  But we wanted the game to be able to be used with people's existing 1st edition material."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729256This is correct.  I listened to a podcast a couple months ago where they interviewed Zeb (I think it was him), and he said, "Of course we considered ascending armor class.  Do people think that thought never crossed our minds?  But we wanted the game to be able to be used with people's existing 1st edition material."

Which is a good reason for keeping descending imo. It achievesd something that ascending didn't: it kept 2E connected to the backlog of supplements and books. In fact one of the big draws to d&d when i started gming was walden books and b dalton had shelves overflowing with 1E modules, hardcovers and D&D gazeteers. Half the stuff i used for my 2E campaigns was 1E material.

When 3E came out, there were conversion sheets, but it was a lot more work to convert, so mostly i just used my older books for flavor material at that point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729258Which is a good reason for keeping descending imo. It achievesd something that ascending didn't: it kept 2E connected to the backlog of supplements and books. In fact one of the big draws to d&d when i started gming was walden books and b dalton had shelves overflowing with 1E modules, hardcovers and D&D gazeteers. Half the stuff i used for my 2E campaigns was 1E material.

When 3E came out, there were conversion sheets, but it was a lot more work to convert, so mostly i just used my older books for flavor material at that point.

90% of my 2e gaming was with 1e stuff, so yeah, I get you.  And since the mid 90s or so, we went back to 1e core rules to play with, but with 2e elements (THAC0, bard class, thief skill progression, and priest spheres)

People have argued over the comparative merits of D&D editions eons before that culture of debate was smeared as "edition warring".

I'd be interested in someone doing some actual research on the origin of that term, because my distinct impression is that it was introduced by the very actors that indulged in the worst form of it, meaning Enworld and Wizards of the Coast.

That is, in the pre-release era of 2008 and the months after 4e's release (summer 2008), the extant culture of talking about the comparative merits of D&D editions took on new overtones, with the phenomena surrounding what Melan once identified as "The Tyranny of Fun" being the most outspoken indicators. Suddenly entire playstyles and mechanical concepts were deemed to be as "un Fun", lacking in "coolness" and "Awesomeness" - and several other terms, similarly well attuned to the appraisal of entire editions, coming out of WotC' well oiled PR machine. The two RPG fora that corroborated this style of debate to the highest degree, in my perception, were big Purple and Enworld.

In hindsight, it is hard for me to perceive what they were then doing as anything than massive trolling. WotC R&D columns, instead of drumming up interest for a new game, were really trolling fans for BadWrongFun. Please do your research, and inquire who threw that first stone. Who first said that flipping pages to find Grapple, that playing Fairies, that having Vancian magic or the Great Wheel was the apex of doing it Wrong and UnFun. To the best of my knowledge, it was WotC that invented this.

Now turn the wheel of time forward three years, and see what happened to WotC' trolling and those corroborating it on tbP and Enworld. Massive loss of support, fans being alienated by the degree of offense, vitriol, and ridicule poured over them by a company and forums arguably representing their hobby.

What do Enworld, tBP and WotC do? They reverse the very shit storm they initiated  and start huge campaigns "Stop the Edition Warring! Let's all sing Kumbayah'. tBP and Enworld start to mass-ban posters allegedly 'edition trolling', WotC puts out 'we are all playing D&D, we are all one big family' R&D posts.

That's what's perverse to me about "Edition Wars". It was a term invented by the very groups that perpetrated it and made discussions of D&D so much less informative, insightful, and pleasant - to then come down hard on those who, just a moment ago, were at the receiving end of such abuse. Basically fans were abused twice over, first for playing D&D wrong, and second, for trolling others, when - as a moment's reflection reveals - they had never done either.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I never signed up on tBP, and I have stopped posting on Enworld the moment they made a public martyr of JoetheLawyers and others in 2009, when it became clear Enworld was a moral sham (and still is, if recent events are any indicator). And I won't buy WotC product until they fire Mearls, who is the single worst, dishonest, backwards bending PR-fabricating-liar-'will say anything that makes a dime' person right now in the company and the company's single biggest question mark when it comes to its integrity.

Sure, you might find it ridiculous to view the production and design of a RPG in such overly moralist tones.

But you know what? It wasn't me who invented this language game, it was WotC, and I take personal offense at any actor - person, institution, or firm - who first indulges in despicable behaviour, on- or offline, and then, in a new feat of perversion, takes the moral high ground.

Quote from: Windjammer;729308That's what's perverse to me about "Edition Wars". It was a term invented by the very groups that perpetrated it and made discussions of D&D so much less informative, insightful, and pleasant - to then come down hard on those who, just a moment ago, were at the receiving end of such abuse. Basically fans were abused twice over, first for playing D&D wrong, and second, for trolling others, when - as a moment's reflection reveals - they had never done either.

...

But you know what? It wasn't me who invented this language game, it was WotC, and I take personal offense at any actor - person, institution, or firm - who first indulges in despicable behaviour, on- or offline, and then, in a new feat of perversion, takes the moral high ground.

Seriously, read this piece: http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977

To put it bluntly, you nail on the nose the same thing Scocca did in his editorial: it's all about marketing, masked in the air of morality.

They want criticism when it supports their bottom line, and suddenly want everyone to be 'nice' when the tables turn and their pet target might be cost sales as a result.

For those new members not familiar with Windjammer, he's a 4e player and self-described "Rob Heinsoo Fanboy" who is a savant at calling out bullshit no matter which side is shoveling it.

Quote from: Windjammer;729308But you know what? It wasn't me who invented this language game, it was WotC, and I take personal offense at any actor - person, institution, or firm - who first indulges in despicable behaviour, on- or offline, and then, in a new feat of perversion, takes the moral high ground.

Where did the "tone" argument come from?  By which I mean,

If somebody says "I don't like a lot of empty rooms in a dungeon," I will say "How come?" or "what do you mean by a lot," or "tell me about your style of play."

If somebody says "There's a reason no one uses Gygax's rule of 1/3  of the rooms ought to be empty and boring as shit anymore," my response will be "Tongue my pee hole, shitstain."*

Tone begets tone.  When did "difference of opinion" turn to "your type of fun is fucking stupid and I will swear at you for it?"

*  (roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the rooms in my dungeon are empty)

Quote from: Windjammer;729308People have argued over the comparative merits of D&D editions eons before that culture of debate was smeared as "edition warring".

I'd be interested in someone doing some actual research on the origin of that term, because my distinct impression is that it was introduced by the very actors that indulged in the worst form of it, meaning Enworld and Wizards of the Coast.

That is, in the pre-release era of 2008 and the months after 4e's release (summer 2008), the extant culture of talking about the comparative merits of D&D editions took on new overtones, with the phenomena surrounding what Melan once identified as "The Tyranny of Fun" being the most outspoken indicators. Suddenly entire playstyles and mechanical concepts were deemed to be as "un Fun", lacking in "coolness" and "Awesomeness" - and several other terms, similarly well attuned to the appraisal of entire editions, coming out of WotC' well oiled PR machine. The two RPG fora that corroborated this style of debate to the highest degree, in my perception, were big Purple and Enworld.

The thing is, that was WotC's exact playbook in 2000.  They even had t-shirts made!  And that was a strategy that made them all sorts of money.  So it's no surprise that in 2008 they returned to the "Hey dawg, we heard you like fun in your rpgs, so we took out all of the unfun and put some fun in your fun so you can fun while you fun!" strategy.

The essential problem is that for WotC "edition" has always meant "new version of the game, completely incompatible with the old".  There's been some carryover with each edition, but every WotC edition has always been about grabbing the gamers who weren't playing D&D.  As Grubb said, "Those following previous editions were simply ignored for the new shiny, the idea being that if it was cool enough the old grogs would come back to the fold. The business plan did not care if any player of the previous edition came over to the next."  Which means that instead of having arguments about presentation and artwork, like in the old days, D&D has to shoulder the arguments about entire playstyles and design theory, because now everyone's invited.

It used to be,
"I don't like AD&D -- I want to make the character I have in my head."
"Roll your 3d6 or fuck off and play GURPS."

or,

"I don't like AD&D -- the combat isn't interesting or realistic."
"Roll your d20 or fuck off and play Rolemaster."

Now everyone expects D&D to cater to them, and will loudly advocate for the edition that legitimizes their playstyle.

Quote from: Windjammer;729308People have argued over the comparative merits of D&D editions eons before that culture of debate was smeared as "edition warring".

Who gives a shit how WotC markets D&D? Their purpose is to make money. That is the purpose of every commercial game or book publisher. I expect all of their marketing and public comments on D&D to be made with the aim of increasing sales. And I don't judge them anymore harshly for this than I do the manufacturer of my shoes or my microwave. When I hear how wounded people can get by comments made by Mike Mearls, I question whether they are sincere or just being drama queens. And if they are sincere, I question their emotional health.

One of the uglier undercurrents of fury and resentment in edition wars is the intense emotional feelings so many RPG forum wonks have towards a game publisher. Fans citing people who they've never met by name 'Gary, Monte, Mearls' with pride, indignation, or vitriol. They're just a company selling books, folks. And the people who work there are just going about their jobs to earn a living. Nothing anyone working in the RPG industry has ever done is worthy of getting in a lather about.

Quote from: Haffrung;729440Who gives a shit how WotC markets D&D? Their purpose is to make money. That is the purpose of every commercial game or book publisher. I expect all of their marketing and public comments on D&D to be made with the aim of increasing sales. And I don't judge them anymore harshly for this than I do the manufacturer of my shoes or my microwave. When I hear how wounded people can get by comments made by Mike Mearls, I question whether they are sincere or just being drama queens. And if they are sincere, I question their emotional health.

One of the uglier undercurrents of fury and resentment in edition wars is the intense emotional feelings so many RPG forum wonks have towards a game publisher. Fans citing people who they've never met by name 'Gary, Monte, Mearls' with pride, indignation, or vitriol. They're just a company selling books, folks. And the people who work there are just going about their jobs to earn a living. Nothing anyone working in the RPG industry has ever done is worthy of getting in a lather about.

Of course we as D&D fans can always point and laugh at the antics of WOTC instead of buying their products.

Yes it is normal for a company to try and generate sales, but if in the process of doing so, they promote the very sort of tribalism that bends over and buttfucks their sales, then they shouldn't look to blame the fans.