Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729136Why 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?

Why do I prefer brunettes over blondes?

Quote from: JRT;729133Well, 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.

Oh no, there's tons of things you can talk about in addition to personal preference. Like, say whether x, y z is possible with a given game.

-Can anyone get through Tomb of Horrors, as-written, RAW on the first go? (yes)
-Is it possible to go into The Monolith Beyond S&T & survive without being altered beyond recognition or playability? (yes)
-What do the traps in xxx modules test? (caution, or luck or preparedness, system mastery? etc)
-Is Marvel Heroic suited to fictional-positioning-based tactical play, according to its author? (no)
-Could you have fit this all on one page without changing the font at all?
-Are there "trap" options in x y z game which are mechanically identical but inferior to others in the strictest sense? (Like one offers +1 the other offers +2 on the same exact activity and has no other differences.)
-Did any new spells/weapons appear in this edition as opposed to the last one, or are they just renamed versions?
-Were Brand New Players x, y, z of our acquaintance able to run this out of the box?
-How long did it take the person whose blog I'm reading to convert x to y?
-Did the author know about x feature of the book/system?
-This book claims you can generate x in half an hour--was the reviewer able to do it?
-Is nostalgia the only possible reason someone would prefer this product over that one?

So, yeah, there's lots of things to talk about that go beyond personal preference and people talk about that all the time. And they often base expressions of personal preference in their answers to questions like that.

When people lie about these things ("Nobody enjoys that..." Liar.), it's a red flag, telling you that you have one of Those Crazy Internet people on your hands.

QuoteSo, 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.

Well if you don't like edition warring because there's a lack of civility, that's ok: I believe you.

I don't like it because it obscures access to information I need, and makes it harder to extract useful game stuff from the internet to use in my game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729137Why do I prefer brunettes over blondes?

That's a false equivalency.

Two similar rules can be objectively measured together by determining what the rules are supposed to accomplish, and then determining how fast, easy, and accurately each achieves this end.

You could argue that hit location are better than binary pass/fail systems or not because each adds value to the process: hit locations add grittiness and detail vs. pass/fail systems which are more interpretive and streamlined.

But in two like systems, both designed to be binary pass/fail systems - the faster and easier way is better because the extra operations and math steps do not add value to the process.

As a whole, one game vs. another is a matter of taste. Both AD&D and 3E have separate virtues, and are designed to accomplish different things. If given no other choice, I would run TSR era D&D over WotC D&D in a heartbeat. The individual attack resolution however, is not a matter of taste. It's a wart you accept if you want to play AD&D over 3 or 4E.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729137Why do I prefer brunettes over blondes?

Some preferences are so subjective that there's not a lot of debate you can get out of them; ascending vs. descending AC strikes me as one of these.

Still, I can easily tell you why I prefer race-as-class to race-and-class, or B/X 2d6 reaction rolls to 1e's d% or single-axis Law-Chaos alignment to two-axis Law-Chaos/Good-Evil. I can tell you why I prefer ACKS to LL, or LL AEC to OSRIC, or any of those to 3e or 4e. The list goes on.

I won't begrudge anyone for falling to articulate their preferences, but when people choose to do it, if we sit up and read them in good faith, who knows? We might learn or discover something fun in the process.

There is a difference in efficiency between descending and ascending AC, but after enough practice it is really not very much, and certainly not prohibitive in running even quite large combats. At that point, it becomes more of a matter of taste. Some people may not care about the slight increase in computational inefficiency because they are more used to the descending AC system, they like the way it looks or whatever.

(Yeah I like ascending AC better, but it's not the end of the world if somebody else doesn't)

Quote from: The Butcher;729142Some preferences are so subjective that there's not a lot of debate you can get out of them; ascending vs. descending AC strikes me as one of these.

That is not subjective though.

I showed already that ascending AC and descending AC are both designed to accomplish the exact same thing: determine binary pass/fail of attack rolls.

I showed that ascending AC achieves this goal more intuitively, and using less operations than descending AC. So it does the same thing, only faster, easier, and more efficiently.

No one has been able to explain the value added in a clunkier, more cumbersome system. What do the extra steps and obfuscated target numbers add to the system. What does this do for the game that a sleeker system does not?

Given these factors I can only conclude that ascending AC is a superior mechanic.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729141That's a false equivalency.

No it's not.  You keep ignoring the purpose of playing a game.  That is to have fun.  We're not measuring objective things like "what is faster" or "what is more of X."  We're talking about a person's preferences.  Who knows why or how people have the preferences they do.  They just do.

Once again, get out of the "there's no way someone can enjoy something I don't like" narrow mindset.

Quote from: Imp;729143There is a difference in efficiency between descending and ascending AC, but after enough practice it is really not very much, and certainly not prohibitive in running even quite large combats. At that point, it becomes more of a matter of taste. Some people may not care about the slight increase in computational inefficiency because they are more used to the descending AC system, they like the way it looks or whatever.

(Yeah I like ascending AC better, but it's not the end of the world if somebody else doesn't)

Yes...you can run games with descending AC just fine, and it won't ruin your enjoyment of the game as a whole.

But ascending AC is objectively better than descending AC in every quantifiable way. It's just a better mechanic.

Quote from: Imp;729143There is a difference in efficiency between descending and ascending AC, but after enough practice it is really not very much, and certainly not prohibitive in running even quite large combats. At that point, it becomes more of a matter of taste.

Exactly.  I can do subtraction in my head as easily as addition, so for me, one isn't more intuitive than the other.  And that calculation is so fast that it has no impact on the actual game play.  It's a non issue.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729145No it's not.  You keep ignoring the purpose of playing a game.  That is to have fun.  We're not measuring objective things like "what is faster" or "what is more of X."  We're talking about a person's preferences.  Who knows why or how people have the preferences they do.  They just do.

Once again, get out of the "there's no way someone can enjoy something I don't like" narrow mindset.

No...I completely get how people can like playing 1E over 3E.

You can make a very strong case for Save vs. Spells/Wands/Death etc. vs. Fortitude/Reflex/Will. That's a matter of taste.

Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729147Exactly.  I can do subtraction in my head as easily as addition, so for me, one isn't more intuitive than the other.  And that calculation is so fast that it has no impact on the actual game play.  It's a non issue.

So can I. It doesn't matter. What matters is that it's an extra operation that adds no value to the process. That is a cold, hard, undeniable fact.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729146But ascending AC is objectively better than descending AC in every quantifiable way. It's just a better mechanic.

Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards?

Quote from: Zak S;729140Well if you don't like edition warring because there's a lack of civility, that's ok: I believe you.

I don't like it because it obscures access to information I need, and makes it harder to extract useful game stuff from the internet to use in my game.

I think the question is what do the majority of people against edition warring believe?

Quote from: Brad;729149Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards?

Oh, I think we already know how and why he posts here

Quote from: JRT;729150I think the question is what do the majority of people against edition warring believe?

Really?

I'm sure Sturgeon's law applies here: the majority of people think ;fm34; gh3kfherjgbjhwvbfjhwevfjhDERP.

Quote from: Brad;729149Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards?

Did you have an actual argument, or are you just threadshitting?