Quote from: CRKrueger;730176Let's assume everyone currently in this thread agreed to this.

Where do you go from here?  Is that it?  2 vs. 3 was all you were going for, or are you going to draw a further conclusion?

I was stopping at the point that pretty much everyone could agree upon, unless they're being a disingenuous turd.

Beyond that point, absolute veracity becomes more difficult to prove.

I contend that the extra operation jettisoned by ascending AC doesn't add any value to the gameplay, and is therefore completely superfluous. If there is anyone who feels that this step does add any value to the process, they have yet to explain it.

I further reason that between two systems that perform the exact same function, the one that does the job more efficiently and intuitively is objectively better designed - because these are the things that can be objectively measured.

You can't prove that anyone had more or less fun playing modern over classic D&D or vice versa, because there is no standard unit of measurement for fun and also because the rules play only a small part. Some of the best gaming sessions I've ever had were made up of dick jokes and bad Christopher Walken impressions.

Also, even if I do show that ascending AC is an objectively inferior rule, it is not an indictment of classic D&D as a whole, and this one bad rule obviously has little or no negative impact on the people who prefer classic D&D, so I honestly don't understand why people are so upset by this idea. This makes me go back to the theory I posted about people somehow believing that proving the inferiority of one rule invalidates an entire game in their eyes, and so they defend their position beyond all reason.

Quote from: Old Geezer;7299606 +2 HD, AC4, rubbery green skin, regenerates 3 HP per round.

So because I hold an unpopular viewpoint, I must be trolling right? Right?

How rpg.net of you.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730249This makes me go back to the theory I posted about people somehow believing that proving the inferiority of one rule invalidates an entire game in their eyes, and so they defend their position beyond all reason.

... or it might just be that you're wrong.

I mean, you can argue it's easier not to use the AD&D weapon types versus armor classes table in the Player's Handbook, or that Psionics in AD&D feel much more tacked on compared to the way 3rd ed integrated them after the fact with its dedicated system, you'd still have differences of opinions, but not to the extent you've seen here about ascending and descending ACs. No.

The reason you're seeing this reaction is that you've gone out of your way, to the bitter end, in order to ignore every single aspects of context and manners in which different rules are used by different people (the two rules might simulate the same thing, but they are doing so differently, and may be used in practice differently by different groups aiming at different styles of game play), which basically invalidates your narrow interpretation that the rules are all used the same way therefore the steps considered are really the only objective measure of whether they are more or less efficient than each other.

That's a fail in basic logic and reasoning, combined with your unreasonable assurance that "YES! You are the only one who knows this to be true and objective and fair!"

That's why.

Quote from: Benoist;730252]
The reason you're seeing this reaction is that you've gone out of your way, to the bitter end, in order to ignore every single aspects of context and manners in which different rules are used by different people (the two rules might simulate the same thing, but they are doing so differently, and may be used in practice differently by different groups aiming at different styles of resolution), which basically invalidates your narrow interpretation that the rules are all used the same way therefore the steps considered are really the only objective measure of whether they are more or less efficient than each other.

Then explain it to me.

Explain how:

A) Deriving the to-hit target number is faster and more intuitive than having it stated

B) The specific value that extra operation adds to the process

Conversely, you can just admit that it's one inferior rule, but you accept and enjoy the game as a whole anyway.

Reading comprehension is your friend. You are not answering what you actually quoted.

Quote from: Benoist;730261Reading comprehension is your friend. You are not answering what you actually quoted.

You didn't make an actual point - only that different people resolve things in different ways because of reasons and hugs.

Here's what I think: you like descending AC and the attack matrix because you like AD&D 1st edition, and that is but a small part of the game as whole. I'm willing to bet that if you've ever run 3rd or 4th edition, you didn't bother houseruling descending AC into either of those systems. Am I wrong? If I am, I would enjoy seeing your work.

Oh by the way, I'm using to-hit tables. Not THAC0. Therefore . . .

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730258A) Deriving the to-hit target number is faster and more intuitive than having it stated

Irrelevant. I don't have to derive anything as a player when I announce my result to the DM. Which is faster than both.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730258B) The specific value that extra operation adds to the process

Not deriving anything is faster and less worrisome for me, since I don't have to care about the rules to consider my actions in the game world directly instead.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730263You didn't make an actual point - only that different people resolve things in different ways because of reasons and hugs.

We're talking about role playing games played by human beings using rules differently for different reasons with different aims in styles and game play, not systems in a vacuum where you get to masturbate about this or that theoretical issue assuming all brains are equal because you lack the social skills to get in a room with people to play with. Sorry, sport, but that's a (subjective) human endeavor for real flesh and blood people with different needs and wants, not robots.

Quote from: Benoist;730264Irrelevant. I don't have to derive anything as a player when I announce my result to the DM. Which is faster than both.

Relevant. Player rolls and announces the result in modern D&D as well.

The DM still derives the to-hit target number, rather than just looking it up directly from the monster stats.

Quote from: Benoist;730264Not deriving anything is faster and less worrisome for me, since I don't have to care about the rules to consider my actions in the game world directly instead.

Can you prove that people playing 3E don't consider the game world directly when deciding actions? I know that I do.

It kind of seems like you are taking a virtue of roleplaying games in general, and applying it only to your side of the argument.

Quote from: Benoist;730265We're talking about role playing games played by human beings using rules differently for different reasons with different aims in styles and game play, not systems in a vacuum where you get to masturbate about this or that theoretical issue assuming all brains are equal because you lack the social skills to get in a room with people to play with. Sorry, sport, but that's a (subjective) human endeavor for real flesh and blood people with different needs and wants, not robots.

So reasons and hugs and sparkles and kittens. Gotcha.

Also, you didn't answer my question:

Do you houserule descending AC into your modern D&D games?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730266Relevant. Player rolls and announces the result in modern D&D as well.

The DM still derives the to-hit target number, rather than just looking it up directly from the monster stats.

And I don't have to as a player, which is great for some people, and not so great for others. It's actually pretty cool to see people starting role playing games just being able to describe what they do with their characters, I tell them to roll this or that die if needed, and I can tell them right away if what they are doing succeeds or fails, being myself much more experienced using tables and juggling with the rules behind the DM screen than they would if they would be front-loaded from the get-go.

It's interesting because from there players get to start from the immersive point of view of the game and get to unveil things as they play, how the game works, and so on, from actual practice, rather than out-of-the-game reading, explanations and considerations, up to the point they get a good grasp and understanding of the game and are themselves able to run the game for other people.

It's awesome.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730266Can you prove that people playing 3E don't consider the game world directly when deciding actions? I know that I do.

They might! Different people are just that: different. Notice I'm talking about my own take and what I have practically observed, here, and if it doesn't apply to you, then cool. But if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't follow that it necessarily doesn't apply to me, or I'm disingenuous about it or I lie, unless you are assuming that all people just think exactly the same way you do and there, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm going to tell you this is OBJECTIVELY not the case.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730267So reasons and hugs and sparkles and kittens. Gotcha.

Also known as "human interactions, socialization and imagination," yes. You got it.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730267Also, you didn't answer my question:

Do you houserule descending AC into your modern D&D games?

You asked? I haven't run post-3rd ed D&D for a few years. If I did tomorrow, I imagine that would be for reasons having to do with the wishes and play styles of specific players who would sit at the game table, so that would be unlikely. Because you know, I'm not the only one playing the game - oops, sorry: "reasons and hugs and sparkles and kittens," I guess you call it.

Quote from: Benoist;730268And I don't have to as a player, which is great for some people, and not so great for others. It's actually pretty cool to me to see people starting role playing games just being able to describe what they do with their characters, I tell them to roll this or that die if needed, and I can tell them right away if what they are doing succeeds or fails, being myself much more experienced using tables and juggling with the rules behind the DM screen than they would if they would be front-loaded from the get-go.

It's interesting because from there players get to start from the immersive point of view of the game and get to unveil things as they play, how the game works, and so on, up to the point they get a good grasp and understanding of the game and are themselves able to run the game for other people.

It's awesome.

I get this.

One of the things that bugs me about modern D&D is that it feels like a bunch of people sitting around a table and reciting numbers at eachother.

But the thing is, that even though looking up the monsters ac and cross-referencing on the attack matrix for the target number is a quick process, it's still one more step than simply looking up the target number in the monster entry.

If I want something with the virtues of classic D&D, then I'm going to reach for Castles & Crusades which is just that little bit easier to resolve, but also free of 3E's obsession with minutiae.

Quote from: Benoist;730268They might! Different people are just that: different. Notice I'm talking about my own take and what I have practically observed, here, and if it doesn't apply to you, then cool. But if it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't follow that it necessarily doesn't apply to me, or I'm disingenuous about it or I lie, unless you are assuming that all people just think exactly the same way you do and there, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm going to tell you this is OBJECTIVELY not the case.

Different people are different. That's why you can't quantify what is fun about a game. You can however hold a measuring stick to the way individual processes are resolved, and make a value judgment based on the parts that can be quantified: efficiency, intuitiveness, user-friendliness. By those virtues, I can say with confidence that ascending AC is an objectively better designed rule than descending AC.

Quote from: Benoist;730271You asked? I haven't run post-3rd ed D&D for a few years. If I did tomorrow, I imagine that would be for reasons having to do with the wishes and play styles of specific players who would sit at the game table, so that would be unlikely. Because you know, I'm not the only one playing the game - oops, sorry: "reasons and hugs and sparkles and kittens," I guess you call it.

But if you did, you would houserule descending AC and the combat matrix in there, because it's better for you, right?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730272I get this.

One of the things that bugs me about modern D&D is that it feels like a bunch of people sitting around a table and reciting numbers at eachother.

But the thing is, that even though looking up the monsters ac and cross-referencing on the attack matrix for the target number is a quick process, it's still one more step than simply looking up the target number in the monster entry.

If I want something with the virtues of classic D&D, then I'm going to reach for Castles & Crusades which is just that little bit easier to resolve, but also free of 3E's obsession with minutiae.

It's not easier to resolve for players, and honestly, the SIEGE engine is a bitch next to "roll d6" with 1-in-6 chance to find the secret door. You're making an argument that is not objective. It's subjective on your POV based on your own assumption that you should know all the system probabilities and have "elegant mechanics" and on and on in order to feel good at the game table. Not everyone's like this. I'm not.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730272Different people are different. That's why you can't quantify what is fun about a game. You can however hold a measuring stick to the way individual processes are resolved, and make a value judgment based on the parts that can be quantified: efficiency, intuitiveness, user-friendliness. By those virtues, I can say with confidence that ascending AC is an objectively better designed rule than descending AC.

No, because some people will prefer to just roll the die and not care for the AC value. Others will actually prefer to not know the AC value, or feel like guessing the value is part of the fun. The DM looks at the table and tells them if they hit or not. From their point of view, the game play is easier, more fun, etc. Your argument is subjective and predicated on your own set of assumptions about the way you yourself enjoy your role playing games.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730273But if you did, you would houserule descending AC and the combat matrix in there, because it's better for you, right?

I wouldn't, because I'd play O/AD&D instead.