Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729089Actually, I hate to break this to you, but ascending AC is objectively better than descending AC.

It isn't, for the reasons I outlined, among others I'm sure, but hey, think what you will.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;729083Suffer fools gladly, and you surround yourself with fools.

Yes.
Or customers.
JRT's advice is great if you view the people you are dealing with online as primarily a customer base. You keep talking to them, no matter how deranged they are, so long as they express their derangement calmly, it builds a relationship. Doesn't sound much fun to me, but whatever.

Oddly a lot of people also think of themselves as primarily customers and so they can say:
"Well I think you're wrong, but we can agree to disagree, you'll come around."
And you go:
"I'm not here to not talk. If you disagree say why."
And they go:
"Look I'm being polite. Why are you pushing me to make sense?"

It's as if they think they have some value (to other people they'll never meet) other than what they can add to the conversation. This usually proceeds a threat to "Never read your blog again" as if someone mutely reading you and not giving anything back is in any way helpful or desirable.

Which it would be if you thought of them as a customer.

A lot of people who are or aspire to be full-time game designers talk to people on a customer model. These people view the discussions as an ancillary part of a larger attempt to build a community they can sell games they design to--so you notice the more well-known they are is within their cohort, the more cryptic, oblique, and non-confrontational they are. They don't call people on bullshit because that would make them no money.

It is odd how many of the people being coddled in this way don't seem to notice or care or note the large cog dissonance between what the designer they worship puts up with and what they actually do.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;7290891st Edition AD&D – Attack procedure (Descending AC)

Step 1 - DM cross references Player level with target's AC on the to-hit matrix to determine target number
Step 2 – Player Rolls die; adds/subtracts relevant modifier to result
Step 3 – DM compares total result to target number to determine success/failure of attack
Step 4 – If the attack is successful, player then rolls for damage against target

3rd Edition D&D – Attack Procedure (Ascending AC)

Step 1 – Player rolls die; adds/subtracts relevant modifiers to result
Step 2 – DM compares total result to target number to determine success/failure
Step 3 – If the attack is successful, player then rolls for damage against target

Now both of these systems are designed to do the exact same thing:

Input – Roll die; add modifiers
Output – Determine success/failure of attack

The difference is that one of these systems resolves the attack in 4 distinct operations, while the other does so in 3, with the extraneous operation adding no value to the process. Therefore the Ascending AC procedure is objectively more efficient.

.

You really havent proven anything here. Even if you did show there are more steps, and i dont think you really did because the modifiers in 3E are different from  the modifiers in earlier editions, that doesnt prove one way is objectively better. One might prefer referencing on a chart even if it includes and additional step for example.

The BAB in third edition involves much bigger numbers, whereas thaco and matrices usually involve very small numbers in terms of modifiers, and these are often factored in prior to play. So in practice, you find that with matrices and thaco it often becomes more about rolling a die and comparing that number to your to hit on a chart, with very little actual math.

I agree that most people these days do prefer ascending AC using thed20 method. The common wisdom has been that is easier than thac0 or matrices. As someone who grew up on older editions but transitioned to 3E, i agreed with this for some time. It wasnt that i went back and played 2E and 1E again, in light of my experience with 3e, that i realized for me thac0 is better (both easier but also just more manageable).

I wasn't aware it was impossible to both debate an opposing position and be polite at the same time. This idea that politeness limits the ability to disagree is just, guess what, not true. I suppose now I can safely ignore all our other opinions since you are stating something that isn't true?

I will never understand the idea that being civil is somehow bad. I mean, I will admit to not being the most civil of people myself, but even I don't hold civility as a fault.

(On the subject of Ascending vs Descending AC/ThAC0 etc... Meh, I prefer Ascending and +to hit, but it's just that. A preference.)

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729089If you roll a 15 on a d20 and add 3, it is not as immediately immediately apparent whether or not you hit an AC of 4.

.

If you have it on an attack chart, it is quite easy. For 2E style thac0, most folks were charting their thac0 out against -10 to 10 AC on their sheet. The ravenloft character sheet actually had a tracker for you do this on. So all you had to do was look at AC 4 on the chart, which told you the number you needed to succeed. Quite easy and throwing in modifiers to the roll (which generally wouldn't be that high or low) was also quite easy.

On the GM side it was different, but for the players it was easy to have your thac0 on a chart. The gm either needed a large table with a bunch of thac0s charted out or he needed to do the subtraction on the fly.

Also, the whole point of having your thac0 number was so you could skip the cross referencing step and just go straight to the math. Your thac0 is on your sheet, just like your bab is on your sheet in 3E, so referencing it isnt even a step if you do the math in your head. It is only a step if you track it out.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;729098I wasn't aware it was impossible to both debate an opposing position and be polite at the same time. This idea that politeness limits the ability to disagree is just, guess what, not true.

I don't think he was implying that.  Rather he was saying that useful information in a discussion without politeness is better than a lack of useful information delivered in a polite way.

I'd hope it would be clear that actually having a real conversation while being polite is the ideal goal.

Quote from: Benoist;729092It isn't, for the reasons I outlined, among others I'm sure, but hey, think what you will.

I'm sorry - but I simply don't accept that.

Your argument in favor of the descending AC rule is that people don't have to interact with the rule? How is that relevant to the quality of the rule itself?

Look - you take two subsystems, both designed to do the exact same thing. One of these subsystems (ascending AC) accomplishes it's goal faster and easier than the other, and the other (descending AC) offers no added value to the process. Maybe the feeling of descending AC is akin to a mother's hug to you, I don't know - but the only objective way to measure such a rule is how it interacts with the basic inputs and outputs of the system, and the results it produces - so that's what I have to go on.

So to reiterate:

• Ascending AC - resolves action in 3 operations; compare results to determine success/failure
• Descending AC - resolves action in 4 operations; results compared indirectly through intermediate source (combat matrix; THAC0, etc.)

No matter how many ways you try to bend and twist this, the simple truth is that descending AC is objectively slower and more clunky than ascending AC. It arrives from A to B more directly, and using less steps.

I'm not saying that you're wrong for liking your game, or that 1st edition AD&D is worse in all areas of design than 3rd edition, only that this one particular mechanic is better realized in 3E than 1E.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729124I'm sorry - but I simply don't accept that.

LOL You can "not accept it" all you want dude.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729100If you have it on an attack chart, it is quite easy. For 2E style thac0, most folks were charting their thac0 out against -10 to 10 AC on their sheet. The ravenloft character sheet actually had a tracker for you do this on. So all you had to do was look at AC 4 on the chart, which told you the number you needed to succeed. Quite easy and throwing in modifiers to the roll (which generally wouldn't be that high or low) was also quite easy.

On the GM side it was different, but for the players it was easy to have your thac0 on a chart. The gm either needed a large table with a bunch of thac0s charted out or he needed to do the subtraction on the fly.

You're still interacting with an intermediary construct rather than comparing to raw numbers and determining which one is higher.

I'm not arguing that attack resolution in AD&D isn't easy, simply that 3rd edition attack resolution is easier.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729100Also, the whole point of having your thac0 number was so you could skip the cross referencing step and just go straight to the math. Your thac0 is on your sheet, just like your bab is on your sheet in 3E, so referencing it isnt even a step if you do the math in your head. It is only a step if you track it out.

That is completely wrong.

Resolving attack vs. Ascending AC is Roll+modifiers=Result; Result >/= Target Number= success.

Resolving attack vs Descending AC is Roll+modifiers=Result; Result >/= Target Number (Target Number = Thac0 - AC) = Success.

In the ascending AC example, the target number (AC) is listed directly and unambiguously, while in the descending AC example, the target number is arrived at through an additional operation (Thac0 - AC).

Even with a Thac0 chart present, you are still interacting with an intermediary source rather than directly comparing two numbers.

Quote from: Benoist;729125LOL You can "not accept it" all you want dude.

So now your argument is essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting: "LALALALALA".

Awesome.

In general, all things being equal, ascending AC is objectively more intuitive than something like THAC0 or the attack matrix.  We know this because ascending math is more intuitive than descending math.

That being said, more intuitive does not mean objectively better.  It all depends on what your preferences are.  When you're dealing with a game, the only thing that is objectively better is the thing that helps the player enjoy the game more.  For some, that's ascending AC.  For others, it's an attack matrix.

Quote from: robiswrong;729104I don't think he was implying that.  Rather he was saying that useful information in a discussion without politeness is better than a lack of useful information delivered in a polite way.

I'd hope it would be clear that actually having a real conversation while being polite is the ideal goal.

Well, the bizarre thing is that, while I could possibly accept Zak's stance if we were talking about objective reality vs. fantasy...this gets back to the whole point.  Edition wars is basically people being hostile over their preferences of a D&D game.  So there's really nothing you can really argue that is anything except personal preference.  So, in that case--is it worth being rude to each other about that--and to many, that lack of civility over something so trivial and banal (compared to all the other things in the world) is why Edition Wars get annoying.  I think that point's been missed in all of this.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729131That being said, more intuitive does not mean objectively better.  It all depends on what your preferences are.  When you're dealing with a game, the only thing that is objectively better is the thing that helps the player enjoy the game more.  For some, that's ascending AC.  For others, it's an attack matrix.

Can you explain then, where obscuring the attack resolution procedure adds value to the process?

I'm willing to accept that people compare the virtues 3rd edition D&D with those of 1st edition D&D and make an informed decision to play AD&D 1st edition instead. Or that they are willing to accept AD&D as a whole on the games individual merits, warts and all.

What I don't accept is that descending AC vs. Ascending AC is purely a matter of taste.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729134Can you explain then, where obscuring the attack resolution procedure adds value to the process?

Because some people like it that way.  Really, this isn't hard to grasp once you get out of the "there's no way someone can enjoy something I don't like" narrow mindset.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729135Because some people like it that way.  Really, this isn't hard to grasp once you get out the "there's no way someone can enjoy something I don't like" narrow mindset.

Why do some people like it that way? What does descending AC offer them that ascending AC doesn't, other than being a part of the whole AD&D package?