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

Personally, for me, its the volatility combined with the pointlessness. The butting its head into every conversation. I just get tired of seeing threads about one thing suddenly becoming about something completely different that really has zero point.

Like the current Ascending/Descending AC thing (which is actually not really edition warring directly but in a similar vein), the whole argument, even when I agree with one side, is just really... pointless? Even if someone's mind was changed... what difference would it make? And somehow the last several pages of a thread about something else has turned into a really pointless argument over something that doesn't matter.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729148So 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.

Some people like looking at the goddamn chart.  Seriously, this is one of the biggest problems goons like you have, and you're completely oblivious to it.  Some people like different things than you.  Get over it.  You're not that special, and you're no "better" than anyone else with a differing preference.  Maybe if you spent more time understanding the point of playing games, and less time mocking anyone who has a different opinion than you and doubling down on badwrong fun, you wouldn't be so narrow minded

Quote from: Zak S;729154Really?

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

And unfortunately, that kind of rude dismissive statement is usually what starts this kind of thing, and why people complain about edition warring in the first place.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729128You'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.rs.

For me it honestly isnt. Especially if you specifically comparing it to 3E, where attack bonuses and ACs are often enormous, and everyone eventually has multiple attacks. with thac0, i simply look at my thaco tracker and see what i need to roll, then factor in a small modifier. I am telling you, that in my regular and direct experience with thac0, it has been surprisignly eaiser and less combersome than bab in 3E for me. This surprised me because i assumed it would not be when I went back to it. The problem with your reasoning is you are giving too much wieght to the difficulty added for interfacing with the thac0 chart. For a lot people its effortless. Maybe if 3E had less multiple attacks, capped AC and limited attack bonuses to a reasonable number, i would find 3Es system more manageable.

And as others have pointed out, you are entirely ignoring how a mechanic feels. Some people are not only going to enjoy looking at a chart more, even if it involves more steps, some people might actually prefer having more steps. Your rationale seems to be that the objectively best mechanic is the one that achieves its goal in the fewest steps. Thats the objectivley the most minimalist design, but it isnt objectively the best. There is just too much subjective preference around how the mechanic actually handles.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729157Some people like looking at the goddamn chart.  Seriously, this is one of the biggest problems goons like you have, and you're completely oblivious to it.  Some people like different things than you.  Get over it.  You're not that special, and you're no "better" than anyone else with a differing preference.  Maybe if you spent more time understanding the point of playing games, and less time mocking anyone who has a different opinion than you and doubling down on badwrong fun, you wouldn't be so narrow minded

You seem to be assuming a whole lot about my motivations here.

I'm making the argument that one individual mechanic is better than another individual mechanic.

That value judgment does not extend to the quality of the game as a whole, or to the individuals playing said game. It only applies to that one specific mechanic.

I have yet to see the value added by cross-referencing numbers on a chart, vs. comparing two numbers on the same scale as one another. Comparing two numbers is clearly easier, and D&D isn't like Mongoose Lone Wolf or Talislanta, where the chart result determines damage.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729160You seem to be assuming a whole lot about my motivations here.

If I am, it's based on your own admissions as to why you post on this site

QuoteI'm making the argument that one individual mechanic is better than another individual mechanic.

That value judgment does not extend to the quality of the game as a whole, or to the individuals playing said game. It only applies to that one specific mechanic.

I have yet to see the value added by cross-referencing numbers on a chart, vs. comparing two numbers on the same scale as one another. Comparing two numbers is clearly easier, and D&D isn't like Mongoose Lone Wolf or Talislanta, where the chart result determines damage.

And again, the efficiency of a particular mechanic has no correlation with the point of a game.  You keep ignoring that.  What makes a game fun for one person is not the same as another.  Some people prefer the matrix.  Whether or not that is less efficient (even if only by an insignificant margin), is not relevant to the point of a game, which is to have fun.

Quote from: JRT;729158And unfortunately, that kind of rude dismissive statement is usually what starts this kind of thing, and why people complain about edition warring in the first place.

Well then that shows where we differ.

I actually think what most people think doesn't matter and is dumb. That's an actual statement of position. Even if I wasn't me and I read that, I'd register someone asserting that as part of a legible discussion--it tells me what they think. It tells me their assessment, and an assumption upon which their other ideas are founded.

You think (or you think most people would think) that it's a rude dismissal and are worrying about the tone it carries. That bugs you. Since none of it is a lie, that doesn't affect the information content, and doesn't bug me at all.

Also, for the record, I don't even think it was rude (at least not to you). But worrying if it is or not isn't the point. The point is we apparently want 2 different conversations:

I want one where only interesting and accurate information is transmitted, and it is transmitted quickly.

You apparently want something else. And, because there's no point (you can speak for yourself, and have) and I risk rudeness to speculate, I won't speculate what that is.

Quote from: Zak S;729163Well then that shows where we differ.

I actually think what most people think doesn't matter and is dumb. That's an actual statement of position.

The problem is most people are emotional beings.  And I was trying to argue that most people care about what other people think, at least in a group discussion, and I was commenting on the lack of civility with the issue being the major factor on why edition wars cause problems.  I have a feeling the majority viewpoint is more like mine than yours, which is the point I was trying to make.  

The argument came when you made it sound like "politeness isn't the issue", but you weren't clear you were just speaking for yourself on that matter, hence the debate that followed.

Quote from: JRT;729165The problem is most people are emotional beings.  And I was trying to argue that most people care about what other people think, at least in a group discussion, and I was commenting on the lack of civility with the issue being the major factor on why edition wars cause problems.  I have a feeling the majority viewpoint is more like mine than yours, which is the point I was trying to make.  

The argument came when you made it sound like "politeness isn't the issue", but you weren't clear you were just speaking for yourself on that matter, hence the debate that followed.

Ok, I get it.

I don't know or care what most people want.

What I want is for people to never be boring or lie. And I think the problem with edition warring is it involves a lot of both.

If you're saying you and most people just want people to be nice and don't like it when people aren't nice, then ok, maybe you're right. About y'all.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729159For me it honestly isnt. Especially if you specifically comparing it to 3E, where attack bonuses and ACs are often enormous, and everyone eventually has multiple attacks. with thac0, i simply look at my thaco tracker and see what i need to roll, then factor in a small modifier. I am telling you, that in my regular and direct experience with thac0, it has been surprisignly eaiser and less combersome than bab in 3E for me. This surprised me because i assumed it would not be when I went back to it. The problem with your reasoning is you are giving too much wieght to the difficulty added for interfacing with the thac0 chart. For a lot people its effortless. Maybe if 3E had less multiple attacks, capped AC and limited attack bonuses to a reasonable number, i would find 3Es system more manageable.

I agree that the number bloat of 3/4E is pretty ugly. I like that AD&D effectively caps AC at 30. I prefer games that rein in bonuses like Castles & Crusades, and D&D Next.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that Thac0/combat matrix is particularly difficult or prohibitive, just that ascending AC is even easier, and that ease of use is a definite quality marker.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729159And as others have pointed out, you are entirely ignoring how a mechanic feels. Some people are not only going to enjoy looking at a chart more, even if it involves more steps, some people might actually prefer having more steps. Your rationale seems to be that the objectively best mechanic is the one that achieves its goal in the fewest steps. Thats the objectivley the most minimalist design, but it isnt objectively the best. There is just too much subjective preference around how the mechanic actually handles.

Here is the thing, in order for the added steps to be worthwhile hey have to add something, otherwise the only quantifiable factor you have to go on is the ease and efficiency of the aforementoned system. If the extra steps don't actually add anything to the game, then they are just superfluous.

Now let's say you take the typical roll vs. AC to determine success, and you add to this an extra d8 to determine hit location, then this added step adds value to the system, because it produces a completely different output.

Ascending and descending AC produce the exact same output: binary pass and fail. The only practical difference is how long and how directly each takes to get there. There is no value added in making this resolution harder than it needs to be. That is the crux of my argument.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729162And again, the efficiency of a particular mechanic has no correlation with the point of a game.  You keep ignoring that.  What makes a game fun for one person is not the same as another.  Some people prefer the matrix.  Whether or not that is less efficient (even if only by an insignificant margin), is not relevant to the point of a game, which is to have fun.

I would be more accepting of this viewpoint, if someone could detail what value the extra operations and math steps add to the attack resolution. Otherwise, the extraneous bits seem completely superfluous.

I get that people like 1E as a whole better than 3E, but I'm arguing that people do so in spite of one singular, objectively inferior mechanic. I'm getting the sense though, that some people feel that one bad mechanic invalidates the entire game, and therefore can't admit that Classic D&D attack resolution is clumsier than WotC D&D.

Gizmo, thac0 removes some of the math, by loading it onto your thac0 score instead of shifting those numbers to bab. I am the first to admit bab was a positive step in terms of making things more intutive for the majority. But every design decision comes at a cost and even bab has one. Those numbers now need to be added to your roll. Some people will find that easier (after all, adding fifteen to a d20 roll is pretty easy) but some people will find it easier to refer to your thac0 tracker and see what number you need for the situation, then add a small modifier to the roll. The problem with your calculation is you treat all steps on both side as equal, and they aren't. There is a difference between adding bab to a roll against a tn and looking at your sheet for the number you need to hit the target and adding a fairly small modifier.

And look, i think bab is probably here to stay. For most people it seems to be easier. For me though and, i am learning quite a few others, something like thac0 and attack matrices are easier.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729155Did you have an actual argument, or are you just threadshitting?

Yes: show me empirical evidence that ascending AC is better than descending AC. I would enjoy reading the study that proves it.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729171I get that people like 1E as a whole better than 3E, but I'm arguing that people do so in spite of one singular, objectively inferior mechanic. I'm getting the sense though, that some people feel that one bad mechanic invalidates the entire game, and therefore can't admit that Classic D&D attack resolution is clumsier than WotC D&D.

I think here you are projecting based on some assumptions you are making.

When i went back to play 2E again, after years if 3E, my main goal was to have a laugh at the old system. I figured it would match the image shaped in my memory through all my days of 3E. What i found when i started using thac0 again, was the numbers were far more manageable for me, and the effort not nearly as involved as i remembered. I had spent so many years convinced that BAB was better, but using thac0 reminded me, if you have a game with D&D's scale and granularity, those numbers need to go somewhere, otherwise you cant increase attack values as you level to the degree it does. Thac0 just creates a number you chart instead of a bonus. This means i dont have to add fifteen or sixteen to my roll, i can probably get away with 5 or 6 (havent crunched the numbers to see exactly how they pair). Bonuses from leveling are shifted into thac0. All i have to worry about are modifiers from magic items, circtumstance, etc (and for things like specialization and attribute bonuses, i can even factor that into my tracker as well). For me that is way easier. My opponent has ac 7, so i look that up on my thac0 tracker, then roll and add in a small modifier.

That said, i am not arguing for thac0 or attack matrices to be brought back in next. I think that would be a mistake. I am just saying i like them better and find them easier personally.

Running Basic D&D now and I still find myself converting AC to ascending in my head when I adjudicate stuff. At least for me, ascending AC is easier as long as you don't get crazy number bloat. Having to deal with +15 or whatever modifiers seems to be the problem not the underlying system...