TheRPGSite

This is related to the JoeTheLawyer thread, but not really about what he said, or about his getting banned. It's about something much broader.

I'm tired of hearing rants about "edition warriors" and how it's "poisoning the hobby" or "ruining people's fun". It's BS. There's a lot less "edition warring" going on than people would like to believe.

It appears that, to some people, "edition warring" is defined as "negative comments about a game". Now, I've seen negative comments about a game before, so I know that it actually happens, probably quite a lot. Sometimes, it's someone making a snarky aside, like "I used to play AD&D, but now I've matured". Sometimes, it's an actual list of elements a person dislikes about Edition X, perhaps even long enough to be a rant. Occasionally, people even complain about "edition warriors" when someone just says "I don't like X, I prefer Y", as if disliking something is some sort of attack.

But when people make snarky comments or actual rants about my favorite game, I either snark back, or make a reasonable reply while ignoring the meaningless opinions, or ignore the negative post completely, because it doesn't really matter if someone talks smack about my game. So what? It's just words. It doesn't hurt me or my game if someone says something negative about it, nor does it make the game better if I respond. Whether or not I respond is based entirely on whether I think the conversation will be (a) entertaining, or (b) productive.

An "edition warrior", to me, is someone who repeatedly goes out of his way to disrupt discussion about a game. And that still doesn't affect the game, just the forum, blog or discussion. There are very few true "edition warriors".

But there's a hell of a lot of people ranting about edition warriors. These are the people who truly disrupt useful conversation, because they turn any discussion into a discussion about edition warriors.

And what gets me is: are people really so overly sensitive that they completely break down whenever they hear something they don't agree with? Can't you just ignore a negative comment or make a quick snarky response and then MOVE ON? Do we really need to start every thread with "TRIGGER WARNING: Criticism of [YOUR FAVORITE GAME]"?

Ha. You're just too wishy-washy to admit that BFRPG is the best in-print version of D&D.

Lately I've been taking talysman's advice and just putting the worst of the "edition warriors" on my ignore list. He's right, there's no reason I should listen to them. By extension, since he's advocating for their ridiculous antics, I have no reason to listen to talysman, either....

I particularly dislike the people who are like YOU MONSTER WHY YOU SAY BAD THING ABOUT HEALING SURGES and then go off to take a dump on fighters or feats or whatever. Often 'Edition Warfare' seems to just mean "picking on an edition I like".

Heck, I don't like D&D.  Haven't for decades.  So many reasons why.

But there are obviously a great many RPGers who disagree with me, and a bunch of people who don't like the game *I* play.

IMHO, "edition warring" is stupid: it makes as much sense as warring over whether Baroque music is better than Renaissance music, or whether hockey is superior to soccer, or whether Fords are better than Chevys.  We have preferences.  Preferences are good.  They just don't come with the prerequisite that anyone who doesn't share our preference is making a personal attack on us by that fact alone, and they must be opposed unto death.

Quote from: danbuter;728300ha. You're just too wishy-washy to admit that bfrpg is the best in-print version of d&d.

your love of bfrpg is harming my fun!

Pointing out your likes and dislikes isn't edition warring. Telling people that their likes and dislikes are wrong is edition warring - anyone who uses the terms 'broken' 'grognard' '4tard' '3urries' 'objectively better design' should be looked at funny, and in extremis given a wedgie.

Quote from: One Horse Town;728335Pointing out your likes and dislikes isn't edition warring. Telling people that their likes and dislikes are wrong is edition warring - anyone who uses the terms 'broken' 'grognard' '4tard' '3urries' 'objectively better design' should be looked at funny, and in extremis given a wedgie.

Agreed. But I extend this to just games in general. I extend it to the whole "storygame/trad" argument and all that jazz.

Games are just games. Enjoy the ones you enjoy, you don't have to enjoy the ones I enjoy, but no one should be telling anyone else why they are wrong for enjoying things.

If somebody says or thinks their game is objectively better, you say you ignore the comment.

I ignore them, and encourage everybody else to do so, because that one crazy belief is evidence that the entire tree of everything they think is crazy. If someone holds irrational beliefs, they can't be trusted when they make recommendations or float ideas or invent stuff that's supposed to work in a game.

It's like if someone on the corner goes "I'm Jesus and I the sky is made of pickled love!!!!" while wearing a tinfoil hat, I am not going to ask them for directions. That person is nuts.

It's not that I'm offended, it's that they've proven themself to be one of the people who is never going to be useful. So, yeah, edition warring hurt the conversation by allowing people without brains to be a part of it. It slows down progress.

I figure anyone who gets bent out of whack by something posted on a message board is ... needing more real life interaction and spending too much time on the internet.  

The anti-edition war brigage is at their funniest when they so often are OK with saying "4e is like WoW" while being against "4e is WoW".  In other words, that person is OK with a simile, but unglued by a metaphor.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;728344Agreed. But I extend this to just games in general. I extend it to the whole "storygame/trad" argument and all that jazz.

Games are just games. Enjoy the ones you enjoy, you don't have to enjoy the ones I enjoy, but no one should be telling anyone else why they are wrong for enjoying things.

Agreed, Edwards has a lot to answer for.

Quote from: One Horse Town;728350Agreed, Edwards has a lot to answer for.

Yeah, no question of that. There is a lot of stupid "our games are better" stuff on every side.

For the record, it's 4on, not 4tard.

Quote from: One Horse Town;728350Agreed, Edwards has a lot to answer for.

Only to the degree that you give him power by rising to the bait.

For my part, there's always the point where it's ten times more productive and ten times less ulcer-provoking to shrug, say "What an asshole" and move on, than to froth at the mouth and call anathema upon all your enemies' works.

Quote from: danbuter;728353For the record, it's 4on, not 4tard.

Indeed. No mixing 4e and 3e! :D

I prefer "4vengers" myself.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;728455I prefer "4vengers" myself.

That's way too nice! Much nicer than 3tard! :D

To me edition warrior is more than just someone who says i like x or i hate y, it is someone who says you have to like what i like or you have to hate what i hate.

It's all about superiority, control, and marketing. Or smarm (http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977), if you prefer a pejorative term.

If you have a subjective opinion that someone doesn't like, they can do one of three things:

• Ignore it. This is unacceptable for some people because someone is wrong on the internet. (http://xkcd.com/386/)
  
• Address it directly. This means they have to make an actual argument disputing it, and this is work, and hard to do because it's ultimately subjective taste.
• Attack the idea that they have the opinion at all and dared express it.

Naturally, the 3rd option is pretty popular, because rather than actually disputing the point, you can simply sidestep debate altogether by demonizing debate itself.  You get to feel superior (https://xkcd.com/774/), and they can't dispute you because they're just haters bringing down the vibe, man.

Of course, this call for tact, decency, and non-partisanship always conveniently disappears when it's something THEY don't like on the chopping block ...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728463To me edition warrior is more than just someone who says i like x or i hate y, it is someone who says you have to like what i like or you have to hate what i hate.

Along these lines, to me an edition warrior is one who argues that their version is objectively better than another.  "I like version X", "I think verson X is better" doesn't bother me.  It's the "Version X fixed all these issues so it's better" or "I can't see why anyone would play any other version because they are broken/bad/dumb" stuff that irritates me.

Edition warring is pretty much an internet forum pissing-match thing. It's about tribalism and the wellsprings of resentment that inspire some obsessives to attack people who like things they don't like. Ninety percent of the people actually playing D&D don't give a shit about edition warring. Or are even aware of it. It's just a game. And with a game as popular as D&D, the online forum wonks and obsessives matter a lot less than they like to think. Half of them don't even play.

Quote from: J Arcane;728467. . . [R]ather than actually disputing the point, you can simply sidestep debate altogether by demonizing debate itself.  You get to feel superior (https://xkcd.com/774/), and they can't dispute you because they're just haters bringing down the vibe, man.

I think you just described three-quarters of Emperor Norton's posts.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;728490I think you just described three-quarters of Emperor Norton's posts.

I don't demonize debate. I demonize the tribalistic bullshit. I participate in debate regularly. I also demonize jumping to fucking conclusions based on the most spurious of connections, like the players optional thread in which the whole thread was a pile of stupidity based on a missing 'd' in a sentence. I also demonize witchhunting and paranoid conspiracy theories.

Its not my fault that a lot of people on this board seem to think witch hunts, paranoid conspiracies, strawmen, and tribalistic bullshit are actual debate.

Quote from: Zak S;728347If somebody says or thinks their game is objectively better, you say you ignore the comment.

I ignore them, and encourage everybody else to do so, because that one crazy belief is evidence that the entire tree of everything they think is crazy. If someone holds irrational beliefs, they can't be trusted when they make recommendations or float ideas or invent stuff that's supposed to work in a game.

The problem with that is that I'd like to know what they mean by "objectively better". The most likely explanation for a seemingly crazy statement like that is that they've left something important out of their statement, such as "given my subjective aesthetic preferences, I'm looking for something with these objectively measurable traits, and Game X meets it, while other games that I am familiar with at this time do not meet it." In other words, it's objectively better within a given context, but they forgot to tell you the context, or were lazy.

You could dismiss everyone that fails to provide full qualifications for every claim, but then you've dismissed everyone on the planet, except maybe the last two or three people left who give a damn about General Semantics. But good luck finding one of those; I haven't met them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;728463To me edition warrior is more than just someone who says i like x or i hate y, it is someone who says you have to like what i like or you have to hate what i hate.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;728470Along these lines, to me an edition warrior is one who argues that their version is objectively better than another.

Nah, I still say merely expressing an opinion, even an intrusive opinion about what *you* should or should not do, or a demonstrably false claim about objectivity, is not a "warrior". To be a warrior, you have to wage war. You have to regularly seek out places to insert your opinion and derail discussions. You have to, basically, be a narcissist, turning every discussion into a discussion about your opinions or feelings.

Like I said above, someone saying "X is objectively better!" is probably just mistaken, or sloppy, or something. You can diffuse that kind of person by ignoring the "objective" part and rephrasing it in your response as something subjective, like asking "Why do you feel X is better?" And then they tell you stuff about a robust skill system or unified mechanics or whatever and you can say "Oh, you like robust skill systems/unified mechanics" and that's that.

Or, if someone says "you have to like this game", you can either skip over that as meaningless noise or say "I don't, really, because it has Feature X. I like this other game instead." And then you move on to more important things.

It's only when the person can't move on and keeps hammering away at you and everyone else that you can truly consider him a "warrior" of any kind. But what I'm getting at is that I've only seen a few true "edition warriors", but lots of other "warriors", the ones who constantly hammer away at all the supposed "edition warriors". THESE are the people disrupting conversations. THESE are the people to shun.

Healing Surges ARE objectively bad. *








* The above statement is intended as humor

Humor is objectively bad.

But Bad is subjectively good according to my playstyle.

Quote from: Haffrung;728480Edition warring is pretty much an internet forum pissing-match thing. It's about tribalism and the wellsprings of resentment that inspire some obsessives to attack people who like things they don't like. Ninety percent of the people actually playing D&D don't give a shit about edition warring. Or are even aware of it. It's just a game. And with a game as popular as D&D, the online forum wonks and obsessives matter a lot less than they like to think. Half of them don't even play.

You can tell it's about tribalism when the argument ceases to matter. All that matters is who says it.

FREX:

Person 1: 4e did away with a lot of the things in old D&D, that's why it's awesome!

Person 2: 4e did away with a lot of the things in old D&D, that's why it sucks.

Person 1: OMG, EDITION WARRIOR!!!1!!11!

If an idea, regardless of source or merit, is expressed by 'the enemy' it and them must be attacked.

The thing that annoys me the most is that a lot of posters seem incapable of seeing a difference between "X is not Y" and "X is better than Y".

QuoteLike I said above, someone saying "X is objectively better!" is probably just mistaken, or sloppy, or something. You can diffuse that kind of person by ignoring the "objective" part and rephrasing it in your response as something subjective,

I'm not interested in modifying their behavior, I'm interest in judging their fitness to be listened to.

Quote from: talysman;728505You could dismiss everyone that fails to provide full qualifications for every claim, but then you've dismissed everyone on the planet,

Do I dismiss everyone who doesn't qualify their claims? No. But I dismiss everyone who won't provide qualifications if someone asks. (And that's an edition warrior--because they will maintain their objection is objective til the end.)

That leaves enough people left over that I still see useful RPG stuff every week, run into unlike-minded people constantly and have enough RPG traffic that I have trouble keeping up with it, so however arbitrary that metric may be, it keeps life manageable.

The real problem with Edition Warring isn't that it's jerks saying mean things about a game you like and they don't - it's that it shits the bed of conversation whenever it crops up.

So you're talking about your favorite 3rd Edition adventures, or which clans in Vampire the Masquerade are the best, or whatever and some dude comes along and declares that your brain is obviously broken because you're not discussing 4e or Requiem, or that you should just fuck yourself and use Fate or GURPS. Then the thread or conversation becomes about yelling at that guy, not about the original topic.

Welcome Rom!

Id love to say I'm an edition warrior for Gamma World. But each edition has been at times so radically different from the previous that they essentially are seperate games that just happen to share some names... I'd rather focus on the edition changes rather than demeaning someone who likes XYZ version.

But in general I just look at each edition of "whatever" and note what works and what does not. I just dont get why people feel some deep seated need to demean the edition that guy over there likes. Especially when someone playing the other edition can be playing it radically differently from the next person playing the same edition.

Id rather look at broken rules and things that just dont click.
Id rather look at how the setting has been changed, sometimes radically so. And THIS is what is important to me. The setting.

Star Frontiers vs Zebulons Guide
Gamma World vs d20 GW and D&D GW (Nano World and Wacky World)
Shadow Run vs 3rd ed (Never seen, but others keep mentioning various things that were changed for the worse.)
Dragonlance vs 5th Age
Metamorphosis Alpha vs New MA
WOD vs NWOD (Havent seen it personally. But to date havent met anyone who plays NWOD who likes the changes to the setting.)

etc.

Others just seem to like to tout their personal favorite and demean anyone elses just to piss people off.

Then you have the cattle who hate/love this or that edition because someone told them to hate/love it.

And lastly the really weird cases. People edition warrioring who have very obviously never played the game, or even read the rules. This is where it stops being edition warrioring and leaps headlong into the loony bin.

Such is gaming. You see this with board gaming too. Though usually its more cases of "I hate this game because my snob buddies told me to hate this game." syndrom. I think Descent was the closest example of edition warrioring as it changed the rules enough to cause fraction.

And that children is the real crux of the problem. Change the rules or setting too much and invariably you are going to cause a fraction of the players. About the only people who like that are the edition junkies who are salivating for the next edition a day after the current one is out.

One time 30 years ago when we were playing D&D, someone asked me:

"Would you like some like diet like cola?"

To which I replied:

"Do you mean: 'like diet like cola' or like, 'diet cola'".

To which they said:

"Diet like cola."

and I was like:

"No."

What I dislike about this talk of "edition warriors" is that it creates a standard where basically hobbyists have to sing kumbaya with everybody else, all things are equal, criticism in any shape or form is bad and "against the hobby", and you're not free to basically like what you like, dislike what you dislike, say so, and explain your reasons for saying so. It's basically a "one true way" argument where all things are basically the same and you can't talk about differences on their own merits. This is bullshit.

I think the term "edition warriors" means jack shit. It's a made up term to basically say "these are the people whose opinions we don't like and whom we want to brand as bad for the hobby." It's basically a bullying term. What you've got instead in the real world is people with different opinions and takes on different things, different games, whatever, and either they make cogent arguments about what they think and how they think about it, or they don't.

No need for a new term for that.

There's also a heavy dose of irony in these types of discussions. The same people who will tell you that "game balance" is "objectively better game design" or who tell you that "ascending AC is objectively superior to descending AC because" are the same ones who will bitch at others for saying this or that is "objectively" superior to what they like. Sounds to me like some gamers need to take a healthy dose of their own medicine before ranting about "edition warriors".

Quote from: Benoist;728852What I dislike about this talk of "edition warriors" is that it creates a standard where basically hobbyists have to sing kumbaya with everybody else, all things are equal, criticism in any shape or form is bad and "against the hobby", and you're not free to basically like what you like, dislike what you dislike, say so, and explain your reasons for saying so. It's basically a "one true way" argument where all things are basically the same and you can't talk about differences on their own merits. This is bullshit.

I think the term "edition warriors" means jack shit. It's a made up term to basically say "these are the people whose opinions we don't like and whom we want to brand as bad for the hobby." It's basically a bullying term. What you've got instead in the real world is people with different opinions and takes on different things, different games, whatever, and either they make cogent arguments about what they think and how they think about it, or they don't.

I think the term gets applied more to people who stop discussing the pros and cons of this or that edition vs the other and who start attacking the people who like this or that other edition. Or take their dislike of some other edition too far.

Or at least should mean that. I agree the term, like alot of gaming terms, has lost its meaning as people apply it to things its not meant to.

It's basically a question of politeness and etiquette.

It's okay to have polite discussion about the pros and cons about the games.  The difference is where people start putting emotion into it.  There is absolutely no reason to demean or dismiss the actual players of the games, for instance.  Dislike 4e all you want, for instance, but don't call players who like it 4ons.  Same with OSR Fans, don't call them insulting terms (I'd use the term Grognards but its debated if that's insulting or a badge of honor in some camps).

There's a reason why we have rules like civility, etiquette, and manners.  That seems to get lost lately on message boards.  

When people are complaining about edition warriors, they complain about two things.

• The people who are the warriors are the people who are being rude about their own opinions.
• A battle between editions is something a lot of people get sick of.  We're dealing with a hobby where people are averaging between 30-60 years old.  If a person is so passionate about games that they forget how to be decent to other human beings, most of the public, as well as a lot of the gaming peers, will think people are taking it too far.

Quote from: Benoist;728852(snip)

Come on.  Are you genuinely claiming that you don't see the difference between:

Player A)  No, sorry, I like this edition, not that one.  I prefer X, Y and Z features, and I don't like how the other edition changed V, Q and W features.  I'd really prefer to play the edition I like.

Player C)  What the hell is wrong with you?  Only a moron would like THAT edition!  Don't you know that it's the {older, obsolete piece of crap/newer piece of crap that the bastards fucked up}?  Get with the program!

For my part, I'm quite happy with calling a bully a bully, I'm not into "blame-the-victim," and I don't automatically presume that the one at fault in an argument is the first person to complain about the other's egregious behavior.  What is, in fact, "bullshit" is the straw man presumption that failure to rip someone a new asshole for having different preferences than you is tantamount to imposing bland conformity and suppressing likes and dislikes.  Seriously, man, do you really feel you can't tell someone you disagree with him without cussing him out?

Quote from: JRT;728858It's basically a question of politeness and etiquette.


[/LIST]

Its not at all a question of etiquette. It's a question of facts.

"I fucking hate everyone I've ever met who fucking plays that fucking game" is not necessarily a lie or edition warring. It's reportage.

"If you like ____(1e, AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, whatever)____ you're a retard" is a lie.

You can have a conversation that makes sense with someone who would type the first thing. You can talk about that.

The person who would type the second thing either:

-has irrational beliefs (so fuck them, they're useless)
or
-is willing to type things even they don't think are true (so fuck them, they're useless)

...politeness is no part of it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;728935Come on.  Are you genuinely claiming that you don't see the difference between:

Player A)  No, sorry, I like this edition, not that one.  I prefer X, Y and Z features, and I don't like how the other edition changed V, Q and W features.  I'd really prefer to play the edition I like.

Player C)  What the hell is wrong with you?  Only a moron would like THAT edition!  Don't you know that it's the {older, obsolete piece of crap/newer piece of crap that the bastards fucked up}?  Get with the program!

Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. But this thread wasn't about that. This thread is not about expressing opinions about games, no matter whether the opinions are nice (Player A) or vicious (Player C).

This thread is about Player D -- assuming Player D is really a player at all -- who interrupts every thread with something that basically translates as "I WILL FIGHT YOU ALL!" A thread derailer. And my point was that, although there are some "Player Ds" who interrupt threads to say "THAT EDITION SUCKS!" there are many times more "Player Ds" who interrupt threads to say "I CALL YOU AN EDITION WARRIOR!"

And I see no difference between the two.

I'll spell it out again, a different way:

If Person X says something about a game, and Person Y accuses Person X of "edition warring", unless Person X is going around derailing discussions, Person Y is the bastard who should be shunned.

Don't be Person Y.

Quote from: talysman;728946Person X is going around derailing discussions,

As soon as someone says something verifiably untrue, they've derailed the discussion.

You then have to stop building rational arguments up from agreed-on, known premises and address (already clear) premises ("People are different, different games are going to be better for different groups blah blah blah"). You literally have to go backwards in the conversation. Sophisticated goals are sacrificed because x number of the people in the conversation will take up the problem, of addressing the low-on-the-pyramid obvious that the edition warrior brought up.

So the edition warrior is, by claiming objective superiority for their game, by definition derailing. And if everyone can identify them, they can simply cut this process out of existence and their ability to derail.

Quote from: Zak S;728948As soon as someone says something verifiably untrue, they've derailed the discussion.

No, as soon as someone says something verifiably untrue, and someone else notices, whichever one of them makes a big deal about it derails the discussion.

In real life, people say all sorts of things that are verifiably untrue. But the vast majority of these are in passing and often unnoticed. Conversation moves on. Most of the urban legends, for example, or things like "Eskimos have X words for snow" or "The Chinese symbol for 'crisis' is 'danger' + 'opportunity'." And thousands of other little snippets of fake truth. And also, in real life, people say stuff like "Prog Rock sucks", or otherwise try to project their feelings and opinions onto the thing they have feelings about.

But these are just rhetorical devices or sloppy speech or other BS that's part of chitchat. If someone comes back with "your statement is verifiably untrue and I am going to prove it with this extensive list of facts," ordinary people think THAT guy is the jerk. Unless you are actually in some kind of debate environment, like a political pundit show, you aren't supposed to dominate the conversation with your massive demonstration of brainpower.

It's the dickish behavior, not the content of the conversation, that is bad.

Quote from: talysman;728956No, as soon as someone says something verifiably untrue, and someone else notices, whichever one of them makes a big deal about it derails the discussion.

Incorrect, because...

QuoteIn real life, people say all sorts of things that are verifiably untrue. But the vast majority of these are in passing and often unnoticed.

...and that's a problem in RPG discussions because whatever they are about to say after that is usually built on that false premise. Particularly because, in this case, it's directly related to the RPG topic.  So until it's addressed, the conversation is not going to go anywhere.

This is why threads can go on for pages and pages and go nowhere: because people politely ignore the underlying bullshit that supports a false idea. Because they're not really talking about the root problem that that willingness to lie indicates. The root problem is usually something like "Dipshit refuses to believe their RPG group is not the only one on earth, or absolutely representative of most groups".

QuoteBut these are just rhetorical devices or sloppy speech or other BS that's part of chitchat.

Or, more often, it's part of rhetorical devices or sloppy speech that's lead the person to their dumb worldview in the first place. Like for instance "The game's about what the rules are about". So sloppy. So wrong. So often repeated.
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-games-about-what-game-has-rules.html

QuoteIt's the dickish behavior, not the content of the conversation, that is bad.

It's definitely the content of the conversation that's the problem. If someone could be a dick edition warrior and say true, interesting things, that'd be great--but that doesn't happen. Taking all the trouble to register on a forum and play a game and read about it and then type about it to some total stranger and then--after all that investment--not even have the sense to try to make sense? That's a deep deep psychological problem. It's like saying someone carries wet fish testicles everywhere and prays to them every 15 minutes but says true, interesting things.

The only insight the edition warrior ever produces is insight into the psychosis and trauma that causes them to edition war.

Quote from: Zak S;728937Its not at all a question of etiquette. It's a question of facts.

"I fucking hate everyone I've ever met who fucking plays that fucking game" is not necessarily a lie or edition warring. It's reportage.

"If you like ____(1e, AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, whatever)____ you're a retard" is a lie.

You can have a conversation that makes sense with someone who would type the first thing. You can talk about that.

The person who would type the second thing either:

-has irrational beliefs (so fuck them, they're useless)
or
-is willing to type things even they don't think are true (so fuck them, they're useless)

...politeness is no part of it.

Actually, I believe you're wrong here.  If you start off with a sentence like that, even if they can have a conversation, it really starts it off on the wrong foot.  It's not just irrational arguments that cause problems, it's emotional ones.

Quote from: talysman;728956It's the dickish behavior, not the content of the conversation, that is bad.

When people say someone is an edition warrior, i think really that is basically what is meant, it is very specific kind if dickish behavior.

I think there is a fine line here, because passion and opinion can be good. Gamers tend to have strong views about gaming, which is fine. At a certain point though, it becomes dickish (and most of us propably inadvertantly veer into that territory when we get frustrated in rpg discussions). Its the folks who do this regularly, loudly crapping on every thread and derailing discussions that get on my nerves (the folks who will endlessly debate minor side points in a discussion). I have no problem passing judgment on people who engage in that sort of behavior. I agree though, you dont want to establish rigid rules that make expressing any negative or positive opinion about an edition an act of edition warring. I strongly dislike fourth edition and will gladly tell people why it doesnt feel like D&D to me. But i dont jump into threads where people are discusding their latest 4e campaign or discussing aspects of the system, to announce my dislike and prove that their latest campaign sucked.

Quote from: Zak S;728347If somebody says or thinks their game is objectively better, you say you ignore the comment.

I ignore them, and encourage everybody else to do so, because that one crazy belief is evidence that the entire tree of everything they think is crazy.

One crazy belief is not sufficient to discredit every other thought and belief.  The fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies doesn't make anything else he had to say outside of the realm of the existence of fairies suspect.  The fact that Henry Ford was an anti-semite doesn't mean we shouldn't have followed his example with the assembly line.  So, if I discounted everything anyone said because they started with crazy, I'd be ignoring you now, not responding.  

 

Quote from: Zak S;728937Its not at all a question of etiquette. It's a question of facts.

"I fucking hate everyone I've ever met who fucking plays that fucking game" is not necessarily a lie or edition warring. It's reportage.

"If you like ____(1e, AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, whatever)____ you're a retard" is a lie.

If you accept that the first statement is true, you should accept that the second statement would appear true to the person making it.  We will naturally extend our observations to people and objects sharing similar traits.  If a bramble thorn is sharp and hurts, I probably don't need to touch a rose throrn to figure out that it would be sharp and hurts.  If I meet 100 people that (still) play AD&D and they're all cat-piss men, until I meet one that doesn't, it wouldn't be illogical to assume that most are that way.  Obviously, any categorical statement is almost guaranteed to be wrong - there are always exceptions.  There are potential issues - it's very possible to make uniformed generalizations based on an insufficient sample size (all Indians walk in single file - at least, the one I saw did), but it's also possible that your generalizations are right often enough to make them useful.  For example, see assumptions that 99% of this board would make about you if you advocated for playing MAID.  

Usually in game discussions, there is a certain amount of shorthand that gets included in the conversation.  When someone is using THAC0, it's possible that they don't know how to convert it into an attack bonus or it's possible that they do and prefer not to.  But usually people say something like 'I like THAC0 because it is easier'.  In general, that statement is false.  For most people, subtracting negative numbers is not as simple as adding positive numbers.  When someone responds with 'BAB is BETTER' they're assuming the 'easy' already referenced is the goal.  Outside of mechanics that build 'mood', you can talk about what mechanics achieve in an objective way.  

But that doesn't necessarily make anyone an edition warrior.  That term gets thrown around here a lot, and usually without cause.

Quote from: talysman;728946This thread is about Player D -- assuming Player D is really a player at all -- who interrupts every thread with something that basically translates as "I WILL FIGHT YOU ALL!" A thread derailer. And my point was that, although there are some "Player Ds" who interrupt threads to say "THAT EDITION SUCKS!" there are many times more "Player Ds" who interrupt threads to say "I CALL YOU AN EDITION WARRIOR!"

And I see no difference between the two.

I'll spell it out again, a different way:

If Person X says something about a game, and Person Y accuses Person X of "edition warring", unless Person X is going around derailing discussions, Person Y is the bastard who should be shunned.

Don't be Person Y.

Exactly, compounded by the fact that the term gets used out of context.

Me: d20 Gamma World has some really broken rules, and abysmal art direction. But has some really neet ideas in it and a great DMG.
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

Joe: I like 4th ed. AD&D doesnt appeal to me...
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

ad nausium.

Swap "edition warrior" with "storygamer" and the same thing crops up to a lesser degree.

I think part of the problem is that the edition warrior or whatever fanatic of the week it is this time, tends to be frequently obnoxious and unreasonable. And this sets up a defensive reflex after a while in those who keep running into it. After a while they just give up trying to reason and tag anyone that looks like they are going to start in as an edition warrior.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729005Its the folks who do this regularly, loudly crapping on every thread and derailing discussions that get on my nerves (the folks who will endlessly debate minor side points in a discussion). I have no problem passing judgment on people who engage in that sort of behavior.

Exactly.  Not liking something is cool.  Making not liking something a part of your identity, and feeling the need to tell people that like it how bad it is, is just plan weird.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729005I agree though, you dont want to establish rigid rules that make expressing any negative or positive opinion about an edition an act of edition warring. I strongly dislike fourth edition and will gladly tell people why it doesnt feel like D&D to me.

Bolded part for emphasis.  The ability to express why you don't like a particular system is what elevates an opinion to being part of a discussion.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729005But i dont jump into threads where people are discusding their latest 4e campaign or discussing aspects of the system, to announce my dislike and prove that their latest campaign sucked.

Which is where 'edition warrior' mentality really comes into play, IMO.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;729026But usually people say something like 'I like THAC0 because it is easier'.  In general, that statement is false.  For most people, subtracting negative numbers is not as simple as adding positive numbers.

I think that in most cases, it's not a matter of addition vs. subtraction.  It's a simple matter of THAC0 being internalized.  If you look at the four stages of competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence), someone that's been using THAC0 for years is probably at the 'unconscious competence' level with that mechanic.  They'd have to *think about* BAB, which moves them down to 'conscious competence', and that can be jarring.

Quote from: Omega;729045Exactly, compounded by the fact that the term gets used out of context.

Me: d20 Gamma World has some really broken rules, and abysmal art direction. But has some really neet ideas in it and a great DMG.
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

Joe: I like 4th ed. AD&D doesnt appeal to me...
Nut: You filthy edition warrior!

ad nausium.

Swap "edition warrior" with "storygamer" and the same thing crops up to a lesser degree.

Yeah.  I find most 'edition warrior' behavior to be:

1) threadcrapping
2) erroneous statements
3) overly vague statements that add nothing to the conversation
4) ad-hominems against people that like that system

I find it hard to classify someone as an 'edition warrior' unless they're doing one of those four things.

Quote from: robiswrong;729048I think that in most cases, it's not a matter of addition vs. subtraction.  It's a simple matter of THAC0 being internalized.  If you look at the four stages of competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence), someone that's been using THAC0 for years is probably at the 'unconscious competence' level with that mechanic.  They'd have to *think about* BAB, which moves them down to 'conscious competence', and that can be jarring.
.

Another factor is the player versus the gm experience of thac0. For players, it was common practice to chart out your thac0 ahead of the game. So the live experience of it often had little to do with mental calculations, you simply referenced the chart on your character sheet (later TSR character sheets often had such a tracker on them). So it was more like just looking at a table, which for some could be easier than adding the sometimes robust BAB bonuses with multiple attacks you had in 3E. On the other hand, if you were the GM, using Thac0 you still had to calculate for each monster.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729050Another factor is the player versus the gm experience of thac0. For players, it was common practice to chart out your thac0 ahead of the game. So the live experience of it often had little to do with mental calculations, you simply referenced the chart on your character sheet (later TSR character sheets often had such a tracker on them). So it was more like just looking at a table, which for some could be easier than adding the sometimes robust BAB bonuses with multiple attacks you had in 3E. On the other hand, if you were the GM, using Thac0 you still had to calculate for each monster.

This is why H&H has an optional THAC0 equivalent. It was just a way of removing a small step of the math, by calculating it ahead of time, so then you only needed to know the AC you were targeting.

I almost just removed the +X bonus tables altogether. They're basically there because 1) some people still liked them, and 2) makes cross-compatibility easier.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729050Another factor is the player versus the gm experience of thac0.

I also think that there's an inability to recognize that people like to play and run games differently, using different procedures, and that from that standpoint different tools fulfill different needs. For instance, taking the THAC0 example, different people juggle with numbers differently, to begin with. Some people are visually inclined and just prefer to look at a two-line chart, find the AC, look at the number and roll d20 to see if it beats the number, instead of adding and subtracting modifiers mentally. They have the THAC0 chart on their character sheet and *boom* done.

Others might not want to manage numbers at all, or a very limited number of them, and/or the referee wants that type of game where the numbers are kept on one side of the screen and not the other, and that's where the to-hit charts of 1e come into play - this is really effective with newbies to the game and 1st level characters, where modifiers from magic weapons or whatnot simply do not exist, and players can just roll d20 and announce their results, the referee determining whether that hits or not. It's part of the initial magic of the game for some people. For some veterans, it's preferable to not obsess on the numbers, to not know the exact AC of the monster, in order to concentrate on what's actually going on in the make believe. I personally like NOT to know the AC of a monster when I play. I'm one of those.

None of these things are objectively bad or wrong, nor are alternatives objectively better or worse. These elements form a particular, subjective context which explains particular preferences for to-hit tables, THAC0, or ascending ACs, depending on the procedures adopted, personal inclinations regarding math, ambiance and role playing, and how one wants to approach game play in general.

Quote from: Benoist;729060I also think that there's an inability to recognize that people like to play and run games differently, using different procedures, and that from that standpoint different tools fulfill different needs.

Well, that's the key, ain't it?  The quality of a mechanic can really only be determined in context of the individuals using it, and what they're looking for in their gaming.

On the subject of edition warriors, that's probably the *key* point that edition warriors (of any stripe) don't get.

JRT

QuoteActually, I believe you're wrong here. If you start off with a sentence like that, even if they can have a conversation, it really starts it off on the wrong foot. It's not just irrational arguments that cause problems, it's emotional ones.

Why?

Let's say someone is making a totally rational argument and using facts, they just happen to be impolite about it.

Everyone rational will understand that it makes sense, only irrational people will be diverted or confused by the emotion. So it's the opposite of a problem--it eliminates the stupid from the conversation.

QuoteOne crazy belief is not sufficient to discredit every other thought and belief. The fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...

Ah but he was writing fiction, not discussing what rules to use to build a fun social experience among groups of people which, in the end, is what we do here. It requires the ability to accurately observe reality at your game table and respond to it in real time and to be able to accurately communicate true ideas to be used in real places by real people.  It is both practical and non-fictional.

Also: If he's crazy about fairies, then his craziness is mostly obviously a factor when you're near the subject of fairies. Edition warring is demonstrating irrationality not just near but in the very subject we discuss here: RPGs.

(ALSO: He comes to our attention because of his work--whereas the average RPG person comes to our attention because they're the next person who said something in the thread. The bar for testing their relevance should be higher.)

Quote"
Originally Posted by Zak S  View Post
Its not at all a question of etiquette. It's a question of facts.

"I fucking hate everyone I've ever met who fucking plays that fucking game" is not necessarily a lie or edition warring. It's reportage.

"If you like ____(1e, AD&D, 4e, Pathfinder, whatever)____ you're a retard" is a lie.
"
If you accept that the first statement is true, you should accept that the second statement would appear true to the person making it.

1. Incorrect: I know because I personally agree with the first statement and not the second. I'm not dumb enough to assume my experience is universal.

2. If the second statement "appears true" to the person they are extrapolating to thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people based on their small circle of acquaintance. This is called bigotry and is a very obvious mark of a dull mind. Even people who are at cons all day long have a sample hopelessly skewed toward people who get their gaming done at cons.

QuoteUsually in game discussions, there is a certain amount of shorthand that gets included in the conversation

And it is this very shorthand (people who use it to think with) that is largely responsible for the abject stupidity you hear daily in RPG conversation.

Quote from: Zak S;729073JRT
Let's say someone is making a totally rational argument and using facts, they just happen to be impolite about it.

Everyone rational will understand that it makes sense, only irrational people will be diverted or confused by the emotion. So it's the opposite of a problem--it eliminates the stupid from the conversation.

Because if people are put off by the rudeness of an individual, whether or not the person has a rational arguments is off-put by the impoliteness.  If you think people who dislike somebody who is rude or vulgar is their problem, you might not have the empathy required to understand why this may turn off people from listening to the argument.

Quote from: JRT;729074Because if people are put off by the rudeness of an individual, whether or not the person has a rational arguments is off-put by the impoliteness.

Then that person, in being "put off" has demonstrated their stupidity.

QuoteIf you think people who dislike somebody who is rude or vulgar is their problem

You can dislike them--but disliking their argument is all that matters. In the end, unless you meet them in real life (which 99% of the time you won't) they are usually a mere vessel for the information they communicate. An internet name connected to rational or irrational thought.

Quoteyou might not have the empathy required to understand why this may turn off people from listening to the argument.

I know why it turns them off. I just have no respect for the reason they are turned off.

The person making this judgment has, in a discussion of practical matters, let their emotions cloud their judgment. They are, therefore, useless if what you want is useful, meaningful ideas about what to do with 2-5 hours of your time every week.

Quote from: Zak S;729075I know why it turns them off. I just have no respect for the reason they are turned off.

They have, in a discussion of practical matters, let their emotions cloud their judgment. They are, therefore, useless if what you want is useful, meaningful ideas about what to do with 2-5 hours of your time every week.

Well, put it this way.  If both people have differences of opinions with you, but one is polite and respectful and doesn't treat games as "serious business", and the other person calls your camp names and uses profanity, and insults you even if they are correct--who would you rather hang around with, or have a debate with, or chat with.

I get that this forum is more or less conversation with the filters off, but for most people, how you present your argument is just as important as the argument itself.  And in part, when people complain about edition wars, that's part of the reason why they complain.

Quote from: JRT;729076Well, put it this way.  If both people have differences of opinions with you, but one is polite and respectful and doesn't treat games as "serious business", and the other person calls your camp names and uses profanity, and insults you even if they are correct--who would you rather hang around with, or have a debate with, or chat with.

If they say only true things and also say interesting things then they are both interesting and there is nothing to choose between them. If neither does, they are both boring and I save time by ignoring both of them.

I know why people make the terrible, stupid, decision of valuing politeness or their stupid feelings over sanity or useful game stuff but it just leads to endless timewasting bullshit. And it turns nasty and cliquish very fast, because as soon as someone in a community built that way is actually wrong in any way that matters then suddenly all the other polite people line up to defend their bullshit.

It's a bad long term strategy. It's a bad short term strategy. Presuming your goal is: log on to the internet, get things you can use in your game off of it, move on with your life. If your goal is just to find as many dorks as possible then, sure, ignore whether any of what they're saying makes sense.

Quote from: Zak S;729080I know why people make the terrible, stupid, decision of valuing politeness or their stupid feelings over sanity or useful game stuff but it just leads to endless timewasting bullshit. And it turns nasty and cliquish very fast, because as soon as someone in a community built that way is actually wrong in any way that matters then suddenly all the other polite people line up to defend their bullshit.

It's a bad long term strategy. It's a bad short term strategy. Presuming your goal is: log on to the internet, get things you can use in your game off of it, move on with your life. If your goal is just to find as many dorks as possible then, sure, ignore whether any of what they're saying makes sense.

Suffer fools gladly, and you surround yourself with fools.

Quote from: Benoist;728852There's also a heavy dose of irony in these types of discussions. The same people who will tell you that "game balance" is "objectively better game design" or who tell you that "ascending AC is objectively superior to descending AC because" are the same ones who will bitch at others for saying this or that is "objectively" superior to what they like. Sounds to me like some gamers need to take a healthy dose of their own medicine before ranting about "edition warriors".

Actually, I hate to break this to you, but ascending AC is objectively better than descending AC.

How can I make this outlandish claim? Well let's look at the bare minimum systems for resolving attacks:

Standard Procedure for determining basic hit or miss

1st 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.

Now even if we add in the extra stuff, like Armor Type vs. Weapon type in 1E, or Critical Hit Confirmation in 3E, there is still the question of intuitiveness:

If you roll 15 on a d20 and add 3, you know immediately whether or not you hit an AC of 16. The only thought process involved is 15+3=18>16.

If 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.

I'm not arguing that 3E is a better all around game than 1E (for the record, 3E is my least favorite version of D&D), nor that you are wrong for preferring 1E. But this specific resolution mechanic in 3E is superior to the resolution mechanic in 1E because it achieves the same goal in a more efficient and intuitive way, which are the only ways to objectively measure a particular mechanic's value.

Also, I think that class balance is of the utmost importance in a class-based game because that is the whole point. That said, I find that class balance in TSR era D&D is perfectly fine in practice.

A 1E sheet with a thaco section is pretty much the same as 3E for calculating a hit.

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?

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=726930&postcount=178) 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?

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...

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729124No 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.

Hmm, two things about this.

First, in the AD&D example, there is no reason to have 1 and 3 be separate steps.
Step 1 the player determines his total roll
Step 2, the GM takes that number, and cross references level vs. ac.  The comparison of which is higher is the same comparison as that in 3e, the only difference is the monster stat block in 3e says AC:25 and that's it.  So step 2 is faster in 3e, but not by a large margin with a screen.  A player has his Thaco written out on the sheet, and the GM tells him the AC, then we're talking fractions of a second difference.

Second, the much larger difference I think is the difference in getting the totals in 3e vs. 1e.  Conditions, Feats, Counter-Feats, there are a ton of situational modifiers (such as stat mods) that vary quite dramatically from round to round in 3e, where 1e tends to be a smaller base to which is applied a single digit modifier.

Poison, debilitating spells, tactical modifiers for facing, all are much more complex in 3e.

So to sum up, 4 steps vs. 3 steps is only when the steps are defined specifically to give 1e the higher number, and even if there are less steps in 3e, if the main step for each player is much more complex, then you're not saving time, you're losing it.

Quote from: Daztur;729179Running 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...

I think most people would agree with you. BAB is definitely not going anywhere soon and it is more straightforward. Just for me, I find thac0 easier.

I do agree the big issue is the large bonuses, but those are harder to reduce in BAB (especially if you want attacks to improve by level). With Thac0 it's folded into your thac0 score. You could certainly reduce it. My understanding is next is doing just that. Haven't been following it too closely though.

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

Precicely.

I like the AD&D to hit charts (and the battle wheel!) and I just do not click to BAB. THAC0 is somewhere in between as you can just render it into a chart and whammo.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729172Gizmo, 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.

That'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?

Secondly, 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.

Let me ask you this: you presumably play 2nd edition as your edition of choice, and you think that Thac0 and descending AC are just hunky-dory as far as game mechanics go. So can you name one mechanic in AD&D 2nd edition that you consider to be a bad rule and why?

Quote from: Brad;729174Yes: show me empirical evidence that ascending AC is better than descending AC. I would enjoy reading the study that proves it.

Try reading the thread.

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 some people like it better.

Personally. It reduces the complexity of one of the other steps. You are stating it adds complexity, but I find it can actually reduce complexity.

QuoteSecondly, 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.

The number of comparisons isn't what slows me down, it is the difficulty if each one. I would rather have two steps with small numbers than one step with a big number. And cross referencing on a chart is not at all difficult for me. I much prefer that to adding BAB to the die roll against AC.

QuoteLet me ask you this: you presumably play 2nd edition as your edition of choice, and you think that Thac0 and descending AC are just hunky-dory as far as game mechanics go. So can you name one mechanic in AD&D 2nd edition that you consider to be a bad rule and why?

I play both 2E as well as 3E (and 1E). There are mechanics I consider bad, but not going to answer this question because you are an SA poster and I do not believe it is asked in good faith.

I should add, I did consider Thac0 bad for years, until I sat down and actually used it again. Until then I would have agreed with your points. But sitting down and returning to the 2e system I found thac0 easier than BAB from 3E. I also liked the tighter numbers which are harder to achieve without something like thac0 or matrices (unless you mess with the scale----interested to see how next handles that though, since BAB with tighter numbers would interest me).

Quote from: CRKrueger;729181Hmm, two things about this.

First, in the AD&D example, there is no reason to have 1 and 3 be separate steps.
Step 1 the player determines his total roll
Step 2, the GM takes that number, and cross references level vs. ac.  The comparison of which is higher is the same comparison as that in 3e, the only difference is the monster stat block in 3e says AC:25 and that's it.  So step 2 is faster in 3e, but not by a large margin with a screen.  A player has his Thaco written out on the sheet, and the GM tells him the AC, then we're talking fractions of a second difference.

That's still an entire extra operation devoted to deriving the target number from a creature's AC and the attacker's level. Even if it's a relatively small amount of work, it is an extra layer of complexity that does nothing but add more work for it's own sake.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729181Second, the much larger difference I think is the difference in getting the totals in 3e vs. 1e.  Conditions, Feats, Counter-Feats, there are a ton of situational modifiers (such as stat mods) that vary quite dramatically from round to round in 3e, where 1e tends to be a smaller base to which is applied a single digit modifier.

Poison, debilitating spells, tactical modifiers for facing, all are much more complex in 3e.

Those are completely separate rules. I'm talking about the basic attack resolution in AD&D vs. 3E, which is more efficient and intuitive.

What you listed is a prime example of how 3E can have a few superior rules, without being an entirely superior game altogether.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729181So to sum up, 4 steps vs. 3 steps is only when the steps are defined specifically to give 1e the higher number, and even if there are less steps in 3e, if the main step for each player is much more complex, then you're not saving time, you're losing it.

I don't actually think it is more complex. All of the math is front loaded on one side, even if the modifiers themselves are more and bigger while the other side are static, objective values like AC, or spell save DC.

If you want to see how this works out on a much smaller scale, check out Mazes & Minotaurs or D&D Next.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729212I play both 2E as well as 3E (and 1E). There are mechanics I consider bad, but not going to answer this question because you are an SA poster and I do not believe it is asked in good faith.

That is a very convenient excuse.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729213Even if it's a relatively small amount of work, it is an extra layer of complexity that does nothing but add more work for it's own sake.

Actually, it reduces complexity by subsuming a (potentially substantial) part of the calculation process into the matrix.

In any case, it's a calculation you make for the first roll, and it doesn't change much since there tend to be fewer conditions which vary from round to round in pre-3e D&D.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729214That is a very convenient excuse.

No , it isn't. I was just telling someone on another board what I would change in 2e, and I have mentioned such things here as well. But these were all with posters after real discussion. you post on Grognardtxt, which devotes a quarter of its efforts to reposting 'grog quotes' from therpgsite. So it shouldn't be a surprise if people are reluctant to answer your questions.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729128I'm not arguing that attack resolution in AD&D isn't easy, simply that 3rd edition attack resolution is easier.

1e:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are few), announces result, DM consults monster stat block, generally one line, glances at chart, tells him whether he hits or misses.

3:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are dozens)  Player is much more likely to forget one or more of the many temporary bonuses to add, which the dm must retroactively apply to the target, DM consults monster stat block, generally one to two pages,  DM announces whether he hits or misses.

In the event the player has all his ducks in a row, doesn't forget any of the modifiers, 1E is still faster, unless the DM knows the ac of every creature the pcs may encounter.  In that event, it's slower by an eye glance.

you guys are being trolled by SA now.  Any and all counterpoints are being ignored in hopes someone responds with an off the rails response so he can post it at grog.text.

Quote from: JRR;7292171e:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are few), announces result, DM consults monster stat block, generally one line, glances at chart, tells him whether he hits or misses.

3:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are dozens)  Player is much more likely to forget one or more of the many temporary bonuses to add, which the dm must retroactively apply to the target, DM consults monster stat block, generally one to two pages,  DM announces whether he hits or misses.

In the event the player has all his ducks in a row, doesn't forget any of the modifiers, 1E is still faster, unless the DM knows the ac of every creature the pcs may encounter.  In that event, it's slower by an eye glance.

OD&D:  Player tells referee what he rolled, referee cross indexes level of player vs AC of monster on chart, beer and bratwurst all around.

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

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...

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

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 (http://grubbstreet.blogspot.jp/2012/01/game-divided-against-itself.html)!  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.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;729445Yes 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.

I think that is the key here. I don't carry any grudges toward WOTC or feel they owe me anything. But I also don't feel particularly bad for them at the moment, since this seems to be a situation of their own making in some respects.

Also, the complete obliviousness in saying that "companies are in it for a buck, RPGs are shit shoveled out to be sold like everything else, so you should just play RPGs like bingo or checkers and shut the fuck up, you nerds (and I'm not a nerd ranting on the same forum as you guys day in day out, because I'm the cool superior guy pointing the finger here, I'll have you know with my smug posts!)", without even thinking for a moment that one of the defining elements of role playing games is that they empower their users to make the game their own and fuel it with their own imagination, to then turn around and wonder why gamers feel emotional and invested about their games, is kind of amusing.

Quote from: J Arcane;729309Seriously, 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.

So I was right all along with being a mean sarcastic bastard, not clapping hands to the whole Positive Months?

(http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z102/CHRIS002_bucket/smug-bill-clinton.jpg)

D&D edition tribalism reminds me of the tribalism between Mac and PC users.  Only in D&D, it's like the same company owned both Mac OS and Windows, and kept switching which one they are vocally supporting.

Quote from: Benoist;729451". . .  (and I'm not a nerd ranting on the same forum as you guys day in day out, because I'm the cool superior guy pointing the finger here, I'll have you know with my smug posts!)" . . .

Jesus, yes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729456D&D edition tribalism reminds me of the tribalism between Mac and PC users.  Only in D&D, it's like the same company owned both Mac OS and Windows, and kept switching which one they are vocally supporting.

Or Jim Fisk owning both the NYC and Erie railroads and diddling around with them so that he could continuously be selling expensive stock in one railroad and buying cheap stock in the other and then flipflop which was which and sell ...

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?

I've got to thank Gizmoduck for providing a fine example of what derailing a thread just to be a jackass looks like. His point was to get people talking about HIM and not about the topic of the thread.

I suppose I should also thank Zak, for getting a little crazy while trying to promote the idea that we should shun crazy people. Fortunately, I'm not going to take his advice and shun him, because I know that he says things of value most of the time, so I can forgive his off-topic ranting. We *all* cross the city limits into Crazyville every once in a while.

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.

Thanks! This is *completely* what I'm talking about.  The charges of "edition warring"  aren't legitimate concerns about real problems, but are derailing tactics, often practiced by the same people who are happy to "edition war" themselves when it supports their cause. And yes, it may even have been a deliberate marketing tactic right from the start. WotC's actions were poisonous to the community; not the game designing actions, but the press releases and the recruitment of "evangelists" to spread the word of why whatever-WotC-is-doing is good, and anything anyone else did before isn't.

Someone said upthread that we shouldn't give a crap what a company does for marketing reasons, because hey, they're just making money. But if, in the course of promoting their product, they disrupt communities and try to destroy support for tthe competition? Or support for older products, or for do-it-yourself approaches? Then we *should* care about that company's marketing methods, because it is directly interfering with communities.

I especially like how, when the end result of the "edition war" campaigns was entrenched opposition far more bitter and negative about WotC's product than they would have if they'd left everything along, someone (was it WotC?) came up with the idea of "I play All Editions" to try to counteract that, and just incidentally provide an argument against people who say "but I don't want to play WotC D&D." Because refusing to play WotC D&D is "edition warring", you see? There's no way you can refuse to play 4e just because you don't like that version and want to play something else: you are suppose to play ANY D&D that is offered to you, even if the only thing being offered is one edition.

Quote from: Benoist;729451Also, the complete obliviousness in saying that "companies are in it for a buck, RPGs are shit shoveled out to be sold like everything else, so you should just play RPGs like bingo or checkers and shut the fuck up, you nerds (and I'm not a nerd ranting on the same forum as you guys day in day out, because I'm the cool superior guy pointing the finger here, I'll have you know with my smug posts!)", without even thinking for a moment that one of the defining elements of role playing games is that they empower their users to make the game their own and fuel it with their own imagination, to then turn around and wonder why gamers feel emotional and invested about their games, is kind of amusing.

This is what's even more baffling - the gamers who like to boast that they make all their own game material and don't stoop to buying published adventures and the like are often the most passionate in their hatred of WotC. If you don't need WotC to play your game, why in fuck do you give one microgram of a shit what WotC does?

Your game is your game. Your game is not WotC's game. Your game is not the game of anyone else on these forums. That's the great thing about D&D and other RPGs. So why do the announcements, decisions, and products released by a company you don't need matter at all?

Quote from: Haffrung;729498This is what's even more baffling - the gamers who like to boast that they make all their own game material and don't stoop to buying published adventures and the like are often the most passionate in their hatred of WotC. If you don't need WotC to play your game, why in fuck do you give one microgram of a shit what WotC does?

This, is called an excluded-middle argument: "either you do all your own campaign stuff so you don't buy WotC's [/insert company name of your choice] shit so why are you bitching at WotC in the first place, OR you're using WotC's stuff so your games obviously aren't your own and don't need your imagination to power them so why do you feel involved here?"

Have you ever played role playing games before? At this point, I think asking the question is fair, unless you want to tell me that your argument was made for rhetoric purposes only and you actually don't believe a word of what you're saying, in which case your posts are shit.

Which is it, so I know where I'm standing here?

Quote from: Benoist;729507This, is called an excluded-middle argument: "either you do all your own campaign stuff so you don't buy WotC's [/insert company name of your choice] shit so why are you bitching at WotC in the first place, OR you're using WotC's stuff so your games obviously aren't your own and don't need your imagination to power them so why do you feel involved here?"

Have you ever played role playing games before? At this point, I think asking the question is fair, unless you want to tell me that your argument was made for rhetoric purposes only and you actually don't believe a word of what you're saying, in which case your posts are shit.

Which is it, so I know where I'm standing here?

I don't think that's what he's getting at.  I think he's saying that the people who bitch the most against WoTC don't even play the game anyway, or at the very least don't buy any of WoTC's stuff.  It would be like me bitching about WotC putting out an Immortals set for Next, when I don't ever play D&D at those levels anyway.

It's like the usual suspects at TBP who have done nothing but spew vitriol for Next, despite never actually playing D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729509I don't think that's what he's getting at.  I think he's saying that the people who bitch the most against WoTC don't even play the game anyway, or at the very least don't buy any of WoTC's stuff.  It would be like me bitching about WotC putting out an Immortals set for Next, when I don't ever play D&D at those levels anyway.

It's like the usual suspects at TBP who have done nothing but spew vitriol for Next, despite never actually playing D&D.

Might be, I guess he'll precise his thought, but since he was answering my post directly, I wasn't reading that way at all.

Quote from: talysman;729494I suppose I should also thank Zak, for getting a little crazy while trying to promote the idea that we should shun crazy people.

If you think I did that, quote me doing that. Otherwise, you're talking smack without evidence which makes you...guess what?

If you bring up a subject, don't whale on people for talking to you about what they think about it. And really really don't call it "off-topic". If what you said is on-topic then people disagreeing with you is, by definition on-topic.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729509I don't think that's what he's getting at.  I think he's saying that the people who bitch the most against WoTC don't even play the game anyway, or at the very least don't buy any of WoTC's stuff.  It would be like me bitching about WotC putting out an Immortals set for Next, when I don't ever play D&D at those levels anyway.

It's like the usual suspects at TBP who have done nothing but spew vitriol for Next, despite never actually playing D&D.

Pretty much. Someone who plays AD&D and uses his own adventures should be about as concerned about WotC and its marketing plans as I - someone who doesn't play Warhammer Fantasy Battles - should be concerned about Games Workshop.

But yeah, a lot of the bitching about WotC seems to come from people playing OOP editions of D&D, and people who have never even liked D&D to begin with. They labour under the delusion that the reason more people don't like what they themselves like is because those other people are tricked into playing something else by a big, bad company. I guess some people just need villains.

Quote from: Haffrung;729498This is what's even more baffling - the gamers who like to boast that they make all their own game material and don't stoop to buying published adventures and the like are often the most passionate in their hatred of WotC. If you don't need WotC to play your game, why in fuck do you give one microgram of a shit what WotC does?

Your game is your game. Your game is not WotC's game. Your game is not the game of anyone else on these forums. That's the great thing about D&D and other RPGs. So why do the announcements, decisions, and products released by a company you don't need matter at all?

Well, I TRY not to.  I haven't bought a D&D product since the 1st Ed AD&D DMG.  So I try not to.

Until somebody, either WOTC or a fan, tells me that what I'm playing is bad, wrong, inferior, stupid, or "badwrongfun" in some other way, in which case they can tongue the brown crust off my shit hole.

Live and let live, or die horribly cut into a thousand pieces.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729212Because some people like it better.

Personally. It reduces the complexity of one of the other steps. You are stating it adds complexity, but I find it can actually reduce complexity.



The number of comparisons isn't what slows me down, it is the difficulty if each one. I would rather have two steps with small numbers than one step with a big number. And cross referencing on a chart is not at all difficult for me. I much prefer that to adding BAB to the die roll against AC.



I play both 2E as well as 3E (and 1E). There are mechanics I consider bad, but not going to answer this question because you are an SA poster and I do not believe it is asked in good faith.

I should add, I did consider Thac0 bad for years, until I sat down and actually used it again. Until then I would have agreed with your points. But sitting down and returning to the 2e system I found thac0 easier than BAB from 3E. I also liked the tighter numbers which are harder to achieve without something like thac0 or matrices (unless you mess with the scale----interested to see how next handles that though, since BAB with tighter numbers would interest me).

I don't believe that descending AC does decrease complexity at all.

With descending AC, you are operating on both sides of the equation (the roll and the target number), whereas with descending AC you are operating on only one side. A very large part of algebra is simplifying equations by moving everything left of the = sign, so d20+126 vs AC 16 is still less complex than d20 + 5 vs Thac0-AC.

I have a different theory.

There are Christians who believe that because the bible is supposedly divinely inspired, if you were to discredit a single passage you invalidate the entire book. Therefore, they argue vehemently that every part of the bible must be taken literally.

I think that you think I'm trying to trick you into admitting that there is one objectively better rule in WotC D&D, that it somehow makes it not okay that you prefer AD&D 1st or 2nd edition over 3rd or 4th edition. Again, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't like classic D&D, nor am I arguing that modern D&D is an all around better game, merely that one rule out of many is better than another.

Quote from: Brad;729243Nahh, I'd rather just ask for the citations to the study you did.

Read the thread.

Quote from: Haffrung;729520Pretty much. Someone who plays AD&D and uses his own adventures should be about as concerned about WotC and its marketing plans as I - someone who doesn't play Warhammer Fantasy Battles - should be concerned about Games Workshop.

But yeah, a lot of the bitching about WotC seems to come from people playing OOP editions of D&D, and people who have never even liked D&D to begin with. They labour under the delusion that the reason more people don't like what they themselves like is because those other people are tricked into playing something else by a big, bad company. I guess some people just need villains.

Okay. So you actually were not answering my post, and specifically not answering that part of my post you bolded in your quote preceding that answer, instead shifting gears completely to wonder why it is that people feel concerned about games called Dungeons & Dragons when they play one that's also called Dungeons & Dragons, and to make an equivalence between that and you not worrying about some Warhammer Fantasy Battle game you've never played in any of its iteration and don't give a shit about. Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: JRR;7292171e:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are few), announces result, DM consults monster stat block, generally one line, glances at chart, tells him whether he hits or misses.

3:  Player rolls dice, adds modifier(s) (of which there are dozens)  Player is much more likely to forget one or more of the many temporary bonuses to add, which the dm must retroactively apply to the target, DM consults monster stat block, generally one to two pages,  DM announces whether he hits or misses.

In the event the player has all his ducks in a row, doesn't forget any of the modifiers, 1E is still faster, unless the DM knows the ac of every creature the pcs may encounter.  In that event, it's slower by an eye glance.

Though it interacts with the to-hit system, modifier crunching comes from separate rules.

But let's look at that anyway: in 3E the modifiers are mostly front loaded right on the character sheet, so the only change comes from immediate sources like circumstantial bonuses or penalties, or ability drain...both of which are present in AD&D.

Here's the thing...

The purpose of to-hit rolls is to determine whether or not the attacker gets to roll damage against the target. This is true of both modern and classic D&D.

AC in modern D&D is stated, whereas AC in classic D&D is derived. That means that whether by cross referencing on a chart, or through Thac0 calculations, deriving AC is an entirely extraneous operation.

To justify this extra operation, you would have to show that the act of deriving AC adds value to the process that simply stating AC does not. Otherwise, the extra operation is just superfluous waste.

If two rules are designed to do the same thing, but one gets from point A to point B easier and more efficiently, then that rule is objectively better designed than the other.

I use roll under in 2e, because the quick reference to 100% on the d20 die in a 5% gradient allows for faster GM improvisation, therefore descending AC is empirically better.

I mean if we're all going to shit in one spot, y'know. :shrug:

Quote from: Opaopajr;729608I use roll under in 2e, because the quick reference to 100% on the d20 die in a 5% gradient allows for faster GM improvisation, therefore descending AC is empirically better.

I mean if we're all going to shit in one spot, y'know. :shrug:

Hulks and Horrors rewrote the to-hit mechanics to roll-under to match the stat check system.

Quote from: Opaopajr;729608I use roll under in 2e, because the quick reference to 100% on the d20 die in a 5% gradient allows for faster GM improvisation, therefore descending AC is empirically better.

I mean if we're all going to shit in one spot, y'know. :shrug:

So .... you roll a d20 and subtract the THACO bonus and other stuff with the descending AC as the target number???

So to hit AC -3 I roll a 12 substract 10 for my 10 levels as a warrior and then 3 for my double spec and 3 for my magic sword and ....
so I end up with (((12 -10) -3) -3) =-4 so its a hit as its lower than -3

Am I correct?

Not sure how that is simpler than d20 + BAB vs AC

I tend to agree that because the target number is the AC and your bonuses are all grouped into a single number that rarely changes, 3e is the simplest option for combat resolution.

I said nothing of thaco, I said of descending AC.

And yes, descending AC + BAB (or die roll - BAB) is empirically better. Haven't you been reading the thread?
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729586I

I think that you think I'm trying to trick you into admitting that there is one objectively better rule in WotC D&D, that it somehow makes it not okay that you prefer AD&D 1st or 2nd edition over 3rd or 4th edition. Again, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't like classic D&D, nor am I arguing that modern D&D is an all around better game, merely that one rule out of many is better than another.

You would be wrong. There are rules i like better in 3E than 2E. I am not someone who thinks TSR got everything thing right. I just happen to prefer the attack resolution system in in 2E to the one in 3E. As i said earlier, i originally returned to 2E basically to mock the old system, because i genuinely thought the old mechanics would be silly. Inwas just surprised that many of the design choices (not all) that seemed counter intuitive or clunky (and could in fact be unwieldy in play for some people) had reasons for being there. In some cases i liked those reasons. And like i said, WOtC made the right choice in going to Ascending AC. Given how many people prefer ascending and find it easier, it is absolutely the right call for d20 and later editions. I am not a hardcore old schooler by any stretch. Happy to play old school editions, but always interested in new mechanics too. And i think mechanics can be judged, just not in isolation like you are doing here (again provided the math isn't broken).

As another posted pointed out, you are just trying to derail the thread. So i am not going to contribute further to that. Counter points have been made to each of your points by several posters, and you have ignored the strongest of them.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729587Read the thread.

Oh, I read the thread. You seem to think it's somehow more difficult to look up numbers on a chart vs. in a monster manual. So, I'll ask my question again: Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards? I'm betting $50 it's the second one. Even though you're a troll, I shall point something out:

Ascending AC seems "easier" in the sense that the player tells you a number, and that number just has to be equal or great than the AC of the monster they're trying to hit. However, in ACTUAL PLAY, it's not any quicker than using the chart. I'm not concerned with esoteric BS, which directly contradicts your insistence that ascending AC is empirically better. Gooby pls, learn what empiricism means.

Quote from: talysman;729494I suppose I should also thank Zak, for getting a little crazy while trying to promote the idea that we should shun crazy people. Fortunately, I'm not going to take his advice and shun him, because I know that he says things of value most of the time, so I can forgive his off-topic ranting. We *all* cross the city limits into Crazyville every once in a while.

:huhsign:

Zak is an extremely patient (and polite, I might add) gamer who lets other gamers walk themselves to Crazyville by exposing the irrationality at the core of their arguments.

Quote from: Brad;729628Oh, I read the thread. You seem to think it's somehow more difficult to look up numbers on a chart vs. in a monster manual. So, I'll ask my question again: Have you ever actually played a game, or do you just post stupid drivel to internet message boards? I'm betting $50 it's the second one. Even though you're a troll, I shall point something out:

Ascending AC seems "easier" in the sense that the player tells you a number, and that number just has to be equal or great than the AC of the monster they're trying to hit. However, in ACTUAL PLAY, it's not any quicker than using the chart. I'm not concerned with esoteric BS, which directly contradicts your insistence that ascending AC is empirically better. Gooby pls, learn what empiricism means.

To reiterate:

Both classic (descending AC) and modern (ascending AC) D&D resolve attacks with a d20 roll + modifiers vs. target number, yes? Yes.

With ascending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is stated. It as presented directly as the AC.

With descending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is derived. You need to manipulate information, either through Thac0 calculation or cross-referencing on a chart to arrive at the target number.

That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that ascending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

This in and of itself is not an indictment of the rule, but you have to show that this extra step adds value to the process - that it makes the game better in some way.

Unfortunately, the end result of attack rolls in both ascending and descending AC systems is the same: a binary pass/fail. That makes the extra step of deriving the target number completely superfluous. It's dead weight.

So in conclusion - one system (ascending ac) gets from point A (attack roll) to point B (determine success/fail) one step sooner than the other. It is faster, easier and more intuitive than descending AC. The step that ascending ac cuts out (deriving target number) adds nothing of value to the gameplay experience, so nothing is lost by streamlining the process. Therefore...ascending AC is an objectively better rule. That's not to say that ascending AC makes for a better all around game, but it is a better rule.

Now do you have any argument other than plugging your ears and chanting: "LALALA can't hear you"?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821Now do you have any argument other than plugging your ears and chanting: "LALALA an't hear you"?

Whoooaaaahhhh!  Irony overload.  I need to take a breath...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729625As another posted pointed out, you are just trying to derail the thread. So i am not going to contribute further to that. Counter points have been made to each of your points by several posters, and you have ignored the strongest of them.

There haven't been any strong counterpoints - only dunder-headed tenacity and contrariness.

And the belief that everything I say is invalid because I bought a something awful account.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729823Whoooaaaahhhh!  Irony overload.  I need to take a breath...

Can you prove that deriving a target number does not require one more operation than using a stated target number? No you cannot.

Can you detail the value added to the process by that extra step? No you cannot.

Can you explain how, between to two systems that do the exact same job, the less efficient one is better?

Can you offer any argument in favor of descending ac other than: "You're a goon, so you're automatically wrong about everything"?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729827Can you prove that deriving a target number does not require one more operation than using a stated target number? No you cannot.

Can you detail the value added to the process by that extra step? No you cannot.

Can you explain how, between to two systems that do the exact same job, the less efficient one is better?

Can you offer any argument in favor of descending ac other than: "You're a goon, so you're automatically wrong about everything"?

Question?

How many times do people need to keep pointing out to you that "better" is completely subjective because you're trying to measure what a person's preference is, rather than measure something quantifiable like volume or mass, and therefore your entire argument is flawed from the get go, before it finally sinks in?

I'm pretty sure it's been clearly explained to you nearly a dozen times, and yet you keep ignoring it.

Thus my comment about irony overload.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821To reiterate:

Both classic (descending AC) and modern (ascending AC) D&D resolve attacks with a d20 roll + modifiers vs. target number, yes? Yes.

With ascending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is stated. It as presented directly as the AC.

With descending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is derived. You need to manipulate information, either through Thac0 calculation or cross-referencing on a chart to arrive at the target number.

That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that descending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

This in and of itself is not an indictment of the rule, but you have to show that this extra step adds value to the process - that it makes the game better in some way.

Unfortunately, the end result of attack rolls in both ascending and descending AC systems is the same: a binary pass/fail. That makes the extra step of deriving the target number completely superfluous. It's dead weight.

So in conclusion - one system (ascending ac) gets from point A (attack roll) to point B (determine success/fail) one step sooner than the other. It is faster, easier and more intuitive than descending AC. The step that ascending ac cuts out (deriving target number) adds nothing of value to the gameplay experience, so nothing is lost by streamlining the process. Therefore...ascending AC is an objectively better rule. That's not to say that ascending AC makes for a better all around game, but it is a better rule.

Now do you have any argument other than plugging your ears and chanting: "LALALA an't hear you"?

Ascending AC isn't inherently better for all outcome desires. In OD&D magical shields do not automatically stack with magic armor. Only if the magic of the shield exceeds the magic of the armor does the shield magical bonus count ( and a 50% chance at that).

Ascending AC doesn't consider the plateau of the value of 20 repeated six times on the attack matrix making modifiers of a certain range meaningless in the overall hit probability calculation. If you have an AC of -1 and I need a 20 to hit you, then if your AC was -7 I would still need a 20. Furthermore if I was using a +3 sword then I would hit either of those armor classes on a 17+.

If such things are not valued in your chosen playstyle then use your ascending AC and game the fuck on. They are of value in my choice of playstyle so I will use the charts.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821To reiterate:

Both classic (descending AC) and modern (ascending AC) D&D resolve attacks with a d20 roll + modifiers vs. target number, yes? Yes.

With ascending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is stated. It as presented directly as the AC.

With descending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is derived. You need to manipulate information, either through Thac0 calculation or cross-referencing on a chart to arrive at the target number.

That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that descending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

Actually you're missing one other cold, hard, unassailable fact - that unless a player has either 1. Memorized his BAB or 2. Writes it down, he needs to look up BAB as well, it is dependent upon class and level.

I will give you this - Ascending AC is more efficient.  However, the actual raw gains in time assuming that the character writes down his "To Hit" information are very small.

It's similar to the Roll-Over, Roll-Under comparison.  Looking at it mathematically, Roll-Over is undoubtedly more efficient because it carries less operations.  However, everyone's mind deals with calculations differently and for some, simply making a numerical comparison (ie. is A higher then B) seems the most natural to them.

So "most efficient" when we're dealing with a fraction of a second or 1 second advantage isn't enough to outweigh how a person deals with numbers, and when looking at the complexity of the rest of a game, such as the difference between AD&D and 3e, it becomes really an insiginificant rounding error's worth of difference.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729829Question?

How many times do people need to keep pointing out to you that "better" is completely subjective because you're trying to measure what a person's preference is, rather than measure something quantifiable like volume or mass, and therefore your entire argument is flawed from the get go, before it finally sinks in?

I'm pretty sure it's been clearly explained to you nearly a dozen times, and yet you keep ignoring it.

Thus my comment about irony overload.

Not the mention his complete failure to actually cite evidence of even the supposedly 'objective' portions of his complaint, relying ultimately on that old canard about 'addition is faster than subtraction,' something that isn't even true for 3 year olds (http://gametheorist.blogspot.fi/2006/07/subtraction-before-addition.html) and I've yet to see a single person provide actual evidence of in almost 20 years of seeing gamers parrot it as if it were unassailable truth.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729824There haven't been any strong counterpoints - only dunder-headed tenacity and contrariness.

You have missed quite a few solid points. That you choose to dismiss them as "dunder-headed" just highlights your own tenacity and contrariness.

QuoteAnd the belief that everything I say is invalid because I bought a something awful account.

No. I responded to your points initially. When it became clear you were not acknowledging valid rebuttals, I took your SA ties into account. It may seem unfair to you, but it is common sense. Grognard.txt spends a quarter of its time posting things from this site with the intent to mock them. As a member of that forum, people here are naturally going to be suspicious of you and weigh that when reading your posts. There is also the fact that you used a thread about edition warring to edition war. So it seemed like a classic derailment attempt.

I am happy to exchange ideas with your and debate, but only going to spend so much time and effort on it.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that descending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

I'll repeat: you don't actually play games, do you?

I see we're back to the "THAC0 is just as easy as BAB" argument.

Let's see, I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare to AC, or I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare it to (THAC0 - AC).  I wonder which one is easier and more intuitive?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729821To reiterate:

Both classic (descending AC) and modern (ascending AC) D&D resolve attacks with a d20 roll + modifiers vs. target number, yes? Yes.

With ascending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is stated. It as presented directly as the AC.

With descending AC, the target number needed for a successful attack is derived. You need to manipulate information, either through Thac0 calculation or cross-referencing on a chart to arrive at the target number.

That means that both in theory and during actual play, descending AC requires one additional operation that descending AC does not. This is cold, hard, unassailable fact.

This in and of itself is not an indictment of the rule, but you have to show that this extra step adds value to the process - that it makes the game better in some way.

Unfortunately, the end result of attack rolls in both ascending and descending AC systems is the same: a binary pass/fail. That makes the extra step of deriving the target number completely superfluous. It's dead weight.

So in conclusion - one system (ascending ac) gets from point A (attack roll) to point B (determine success/fail) one step sooner than the other. It is faster, easier and more intuitive than descending AC. The step that ascending ac cuts out (deriving target number) adds nothing of value to the gameplay experience, so nothing is lost by streamlining the process. Therefore...ascending AC is an objectively better rule. That's not to say that ascending AC makes for a better all around game, but it is a better rule.

Now do you have any argument other than plugging your ears and chanting: "LALALA can't hear you"?

You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729858You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

I see we're back on the "One die roll mechanic to rule them all" argument. You're just as fucking stupid as he is and are ASSuming AD&D = D&D 3rd edition. They're not the same game, so THAC0 vs. BAB isn't even a real argument to begin with.

Calling anything remotely subjective a "cold, hard fact" is about about dishonest as it gets.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729857I see we're back to the "THAC0 is just as easy as BAB" argument.

Let's see, I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare to AC, or I can roll 1d20 + modifiers and compare it to (THAC0 - AC).  I wonder which one is easier and more intuitive?

By the way, i acknowledged that BAB is more intuitive and efficient for most people and therefore a good deaign choice for d20 and for D&D going forward. I was just pointing out that some of us find thac0 and matrices easier in practice (especially if you have charts) and that there is the advantage it confers of backwards compatibility with older material. There is also the specific problem in d20 of the numbers getting a bit out of control, which is harder to reign in with BAB if you want attacks to improve as you level and still have the scope of AD&D (because those numbers were imbedded in your thac0 score or in the matrices before). The issue i took with gizmo's claim is the suggestion that it can be viewed as objectively superior in isolation. To me that doesn't hold if i can think of instances where it would be better to employ thac0 or matrices (i.e. A game designed to be compatible with the old D&D modules and supplements, a game meant to appeal to people who happen to prefer matrices or thac0 trackers, etc).

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729858You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

I do not believe anyone has claimed it is better than BAB, only that it does have some benefits and that some people (definitley a minority) do find it easier. That isn't exaclty a radical claim. It acknowledges that BAB for the wider audience was a good move, a positive devlelopment in the game. It just points out some people still prefer using a chart or thac0 score because it works better for them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729131In 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.

I'm going to repeat this, and hope that by some strange miracle, certain people don't continue to ignore it and actually think about it.

Quote from: Brad;729860I see we're back on the "One die roll mechanic to rule them all" argument. You're just as fucking stupid as he is and are ASSuming AD&D = D&D 3rd edition. They're not the same game, so THAC0 vs. BAB isn't even a real argument to begin with.

Calling anything remotely subjective a "cold, hard fact" is about about dishonest as it gets.

Subjective: your preferences.

Objective: THAC0 is less intuitive (lower AC = better?), is more convoluted (+1 armor reduces AC?), and requires an additional step (THAC0 - AC = target number).

Just so that Sommerjon feels vindicated in his signature - "Frankly, who gives a fuck?" :idunno:

Some like vanilla, some like chilli chicken. Some like Pink, some like Pink Floyd. Some even like both.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729863I do not believe anyone has claimed it is better than BAB

No, but Gizmoduck definitely claimed BAB is objectively better than THAC0. It's a different mechanic and gives you different information. People who cannot comprehend that the information provided by THAC0 differs from that provided by BAB probably have never actually played the game they're talking about. So the phrase "in actual play" is a fucking joke coming from their mouths. I wouldn't have one issue with, "I hate THAC0 and for me BAB is way better". That's a perfectly legitimate statement to make. The issue is simply saying THAC0 is a complete waste of time and a useless mechanic; it's not. It is different. That's it.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729865Subjective: your preferences.

Objective: THAC0 is less intuitive (lower AC = better?), is more convoluted (+1 armor reduces AC?), and requires an additional step (THAC0 - AC = target number).

It's not less intuitive if you play wargames. Hence, it has nothing to do with intuition, by definition. Gooby pls, learn to word. Also, there aren't additional steps. That is just some bullshit someone magically came up with.

Yeah, but, no, but, haven't you been reading the thread?
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Brad;729868It's not less intuitive if you play wargames. Hence, it has nothing to do with intuition, by definition. Gooby pls, learn to word. Also, there aren't additional steps. That is just some bullshit someone magically came up with.

It's not less intuitive if you aren't already interested in a niche part of the gaming hobby.  It's less intuitive for 99% of the rest of the population.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729858You should not bother arguing this with them, anyone who thinks THAC0 is a better mechanic than ascending AC is dumb or dishonest.

'Better Mechanic' I might agree with, depending on how that is defined.

But I see no problem with someone preferring Thaco.

Like I said earlier, it's a slightly better mechanic, assuming you are used to both options. The ascending AC algorithm is slightly faster and I'm sure if you were calculating dozens of strikes per second you'd see it. Of course, that doesn't happen. The main benefit of ascending AC is the initial uptake for beginners.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729829Question?

How many times do people need to keep pointing out to you that "better" is completely subjective because you're trying to measure what a person's preference is, rather than measure something quantifiable like volume or mass, and therefore your entire argument is flawed from the get go, before it finally sinks in?

I'm pretty sure it's been clearly explained to you nearly a dozen times, and yet you keep ignoring it.

Thus my comment about irony overload.

That's because it's not a matter of preference. These are two rules designed that have the exact same input and output, and they have objective values. One of these rules does the job faster and easier.

Maybe you like descending AC better than ascending AC for whatever reason, ascending AC is still an objectively better designed rule.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;729832Ascending AC isn't inherently better for all outcome desires. In OD&D magical shields do not automatically stack with magic armor. Only if the magic of the shield exceeds the magic of the armor does the shield magical bonus count ( and a 50% chance at that).

Ascending AC doesn't consider the plateau of the value of 20 repeated six times on the attack matrix making modifiers of a certain range meaningless in the overall hit probability calculation. If you have an AC of -1 and I need a 20 to hit you, then if your AC was -7 I would still need a 20. Furthermore if I was using a +3 sword then I would hit either of those armor classes on a 17+.

If such things are not valued in your chosen playstyle then use your ascending AC and game the fuck on. They are of value in my choice of playstyle so I will use the charts.

I'm sorry..but all this seems to prove is that bonuses in OD&D are superfluous and counterintuitive. If you need a 20 to hit an AC of -1 and a 20 to hit an AC of -7, then what is the practical difference between -1 and -7?

Quote from: J Arcane;729834Not the mention his complete failure to actually cite evidence of even the supposedly 'objective' portions of his complaint, relying ultimately on that old canard about 'addition is faster than subtraction,' something that isn't even true for 3 year olds (http://gametheorist.blogspot.fi/2006/07/subtraction-before-addition.html) and I've yet to see a single person provide actual evidence of in almost 20 years of seeing gamers parrot it as if it were unassailable truth.

The relative speed of addition vs. subtraction isn't the point.

With descending AC, the target number to-hit is derived. It takes one more step to resolve than attacks vs. ascending AC. That is a fact.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729912That's because it's not a matter of preference. .

What games people like and play absolutely is.  Anything else is worthless and not important.

Jesus...you are totally missing the entire point of GAMES

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729849No. I responded to your points initially. When it became clear you were not acknowledging valid rebuttals, I took your SA ties into account. It may seem unfair to you, but it is common sense. Grognard.txt spends a quarter of its time posting things from this site with the intent to mock them. As a member of that forum, people here are naturally going to be suspicious of you and weigh that when reading your posts. There is also the fact that you used a thread about edition warring to edition war. So it seemed like a classic derailment attempt.

I'm sorry - but "I just like it better, so shut up!" isn't a valid rebuttal. Personal preference doesn't have any bearing on the quality of design, when such things can be objectively weighed and judged against one another, like ascending vs. descending AC can.

Also, I'm not edition warring. This isn't about any particular edition - it's about one specific rule. As I've said before it's perfectly reasonable that AD&D might have one inferior rule, but still be an all around better game than 3E.

Also, if people here weren't regularly posting stupid shit, grognards.txt wouldn't have so much ammo. So whose fault is it really?

Just makes me want to make an unholy abomination that includes BAB, descending AC, and roll under, just so more people can whine about the objective quality of things that are pretty subjective.

TN = BAB + Modifiers + AC, d20 roll under.

oddly, I actually do see benefits to it...

Quote from: Emperor Norton;729920Just makes me want to make an unholy abomination that includes BAB, descending AC, and roll under.

TN = BAB + Modifiers + AC, d20 roll under.

oddly, I actually do see benefits to it...

I already did this.

It works great.

Quote from: Brad;729855I'll repeat: you don't actually play games, do you?

Do you have any other argument?

Quote from: Brad;729867No, but Gizmoduck definitely claimed BAB is objectively better than THAC0. It's a different mechanic and gives you different information. People who cannot comprehend that the information provided by THAC0 differs from that provided by BAB probably have never actually played the game they're talking about. So the phrase "in actual play" is a fucking joke coming from their mouths. I wouldn't have one issue with, "I hate THAC0 and for me BAB is way better". That's a perfectly legitimate statement to make. The issue is simply saying THAC0 is a complete waste of time and a useless mechanic; it's not. It is different. That's it.

Oh goody.

I claimed that ascending AC is an objectively better rule than descending AC. BAB and Thac0 are only by-products of these rules.

Do you not agree that ascending AC and descending AC have the same inputs and outputs? (Input: Roll die, add modifiers; Output: determine success/failure of attack?)

Do you not agree that calculating or cross referencing the to-hit target number requires one more step of work than pulling the target number directly from the character sheet or monster entry?

Can you explain how that extra step improves the gameplay experience?

If two systems are designed to do the exact same thing: roll to-hit foe, and one of these systems gets from point A to point B faster and easier by streamlining the process and trimming unnecessary operations, thenis this noit the better designed system?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;729920Just makes me want to make an unholy abomination that includes BAB, descending AC, and roll under, just so more people can whine about the objective quality of things that are pretty subjective.

TN = BAB + Modifiers + AC, d20 roll under.

oddly, I actually do see benefits to it...

That would be fine.

Talislanta does something kind of like this, only that system is roll over.

The added value there is that the results table has degrees of success, instead of just binary pass/fail like D&D. Also, the damage is determined by the attack roll, so it actually resolves each action lightning fast.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729917Personal preference doesn't have any bearing on the quality of design,...

It's clear you know about as much about designing a product as Arduin/Rooster knows about law.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729917Personal preference doesn't have any bearing on the quality of design, when such things can be objectively weighed and judged against one another, like ascending vs. descending AC can.

Trollman? Is that you?

Anyway, regardless of your actual point of contention, it is my humble experience that people seeking to establish primacy in gaming debates by claiming that A is "objectively better" than B are (a) full of shit or (b) completely missing the point.

Ascending AC may be Objectively Better than descending AC, but descending AC has never stopped anyone in my gaming group from playing TSR-era D&D. If your players are actually complaining about having to do subtraction (or God help them, about looking up a number in a chart, in an age in which you can store image files and documents in you cell phone or tablet), well, I hate to break it to you, but you may be playing with idiots. Don't play with idiots. Problem solved.

Quote from: The Butcher;729926Trollman? Is that you?

Trollman holds no monopoly on autism.

Quote from: The Butcher;729926Trollman? Is that you?

No - I actually like games where the GM makes decisions.

Anyway, regardless of your actual point of contention, it is my humble experience that people seeking to establish primacy in gaming debates by claiming that A is "objectively better" than B are (a) full of shit or (b) completely missing the point.

Quote from: The Butcher;729926Ascending AC may be Objectively Better than descending AC, but descending AC has never stopped anyone in my gaming group from playing TSR-era D&D. If your players are actually complaining about having to do subtraction (or God help them, about looking up a number in a chart, in an age in which you can store image files and documents in you cell phone or tablet), well, I hate to break it to you, but you may be playing with idiots. Don't play with idiots. Problem solved.

Nor should it.

The superiority of one single rule is all that I am arguing, not the superiority of an entire game. If you would rather play TSR D&D then do so. I never said that people shouldn't be playing what they want.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729929No - I actually like games where the GM makes decisions.

Anyway, regardless of your actual point of contention, it is my humble experience that people seeking to establish primacy in gaming debates by claiming that A is "objectively better" than B are (a) full of shit or (b) completely missing the point.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729912That's because it's not a matter of preference. These are two rules designed that have the exact same input and output, and they have objective values. One of these rules does the job faster and easier.

Maybe you like descending AC better than ascending AC for whatever reason, ascending AC is still an objectively better designed rule.

Do you flip a coin before posting?

Quote from: Rincewind1;729931Do you flip a coin before posting?

Where are you seeing a conflict?

I believe that ascending AC is an objectively better designed rule than descending AC. Personal preference does not negate the fact that descending AC is slower and less intuitive.

However, that is just one single rule and not an indictment of the game as whole. AD&D might still be an all around better game than 3E, despite having one shitty rule. I never made a claim as to which game people should be playing.

Case in point: If I'm going to run something with Dungeons & Dragons on the cover, it's most likely going to be BECMI/RC D&D, even though I've spent this entire thread shitting on the attack resolution.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729935Case in point: If I'm going to run something with Dungeons & Dragons on the cover, it's most likely going to be BECMI/RC D&D, even though I've spent this entire thread shitting on the attack resolution.

As a fellow BECMI/RC fan I'm glad to hear it. :)

But you do realize that's fairly close to admitting that the ascending AC thing is a spherical cow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow), right?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729917I'm sorry - but "I just like it better, so shut up!" isn't a valid rebuttal. Personal preference doesn't have any bearing on the quality of design, when such things can be objectively weighed and judged against one another, like ascending vs. descending AC can.

That wasn't my rebuttal. I responded, you responded back, we basically made the same arguments again and again, and I saw not point in continuing with someone who didn't seem terribly interested in an actual exchange of ideas.

Again, you think you have objectively weighed it. Others have demonstrated that all you have shown, if you have even done that, is one method is more efficient. More Efficient does not equal objectively better. I would agree with you that you can measure mechanics, just not in isolation. If you take 3E for example, given its audience and its design goals, I'd agree with you, BAB is simply a better mechanic for that edition. All I am opposed to is the notion that a mechanic is objectively better in isolation, without any consideration for its audience, its application, its feel, etc.

You can't just sweep preferences and taste aside like they don't matter. They do. They are incredibly important when it comes to RPGs. You can have a mechanic that looks great on paper but people just don't like "because". Delivering things your audience likes is part of good design.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729935Personal preference does not negate the fact that descending AC is slower and less intuitive.
.

How much slower?  If it's objective, then it is measurable.

So data please?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729824And the belief that everything I say is invalid because I bought a something awful account.

Being a goon doesn't make you wrong. It makes you a horse's ass.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729917Also, if people here weren't regularly posting stupid shit, grognards.txt wouldn't have so much ammo. So whose fault is it really?

No one forces you to post things on SA. What you choose to post there is your own fault, not anyone else's. Nothing stupid or silly anyone says on the net compels you to regurgitate it at SA.

But the purpose of my post wasn't to cast blame on either side. I was just pointing out that because you are member there, and because grognard.txt spends a considerable amount of time reposting material from this site in order to mock our posters, it is entirely fair for us to take that into account when judging and responding to your posts. It speaks to your motivations and intentions.

However, I give you points for using the same username at both sites.

Gizmoduck seems like one of the more sober SA posters.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;729948Gizmoduck seems like one of the more sober SA posters.

See also, 'damning with faint praise.'

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729942How much slower?  If it's objective, then it is measurable.

So data please?

Slower by one operation - deriving target number.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;729941Again, you think you have objectively weighed it. Others have demonstrated that all you have shown, if you have even done that, is one method is more efficient. More Efficient does not equal objectively better. I would agree with you that you can measure mechanics, just not in isolation. If you take 3E for example, given its audience and its design goals, I'd agree with you, BAB is simply a better mechanic for that edition. All I am opposed to is the notion that a mechanic is objectively better in isolation, without any consideration for its audience, its application, its feel, etc.

Sorry but the rule is a mechanical process. It can be judged by how well it achieves the task for which it was designed. The basic inputs and outputs of both systems are the exact same, then they can only be judged by how efficient the resolution is. If ascending AC does the job easier and more efficiently than descending AC, then it is objectively better.

You said it yourself - I've shown that ascending AC is more efficient, yet you prefer descending AC. If relative efficiency has no bearing on your sense of enjoyment, then the added step of deriving the target number adds no value. Therefore, the more efficient system is better since efficiency is the only relevant comparison.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729954Sorry but the rule is a mechanical process. It can be judged by how well it achieves the task for which it was designed. The basic inputs and outputs of both systems are the exact same, then they can only be judged by how efficient the resolution is. If ascending AC does the job easier and more efficiently than descending AC, then it is objectively better.

You said it yourself - I've shown that ascending AC is more efficient, yet you prefer descending AC. If relative efficiency has no bearing on your sense of enjoyment, then the added step of deriving the target number adds no value. Therefore, the more efficient system is better since efficiency is the only relevant comparison.

This is just a repeat of what you have already said.

What i said about descending is i personally find it easier than BAB and i prefer the feel. That has a huge impact on the value and use of the mechanic. If you are designing a game with folks like me as your target audience, it is a good choice. Like i said, you cant weigh something in isolation. You have to consider its audience.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729942How much slower?  If it's objective, then it is measurable.

So data please?

And note it totally ignores the question of "chart lookup," which is a fish riding a different unicycle completely.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;729944Being a goon doesn't make you wrong. It makes you a horse's ass.

6 +2 HD, AC4, rubbery green skin, regenerates 3 HP per round.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729959And note it totally ignores the question of "chart lookup," which is a fish riding a different unicycle completely.

Part of the problem is he is giving each step on both sides equal weight only when it suits him but differing weight only when it suits him (i.e. Subtraction being harder than adding). And different people are going to value each step differently.  I pointed out early on, thac0 and matrices allow you to fold in those big BAB numbers that grow with level, resulting in less addition or subtraction if you use a tracker for thac0 or the 1E matrices. The modifiers you do use end up being smaller, and you just look at a number on the chart for the most part. I find that incredibly easy. A lot easier than juggling the growing bonuses you get in 3E, where you might be adding a 17 or more to your d20 roll.

To me the difference was stark. I played 3E for years and loved it, and i thought going back to thac0 would be a pain. At first it was, until i used trackers for different thac0 ratings. Then i found it was honestly easier for me and faster to use thac0.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729959And note it totally ignores the question of "chart lookup," which is a fish riding a different unicycle completely.

I should actually apologize, because I let myself get drawn into the topic that I've been saying isn't relevant at all.  IMO, it shouldn't even get to the point of what might be .00004 seconds faster or not, because it's not relevant at all.

The purpose of a game is to have fun
Having fun is subjective

Therefore, the only truly relevant rule is the one that allows one to have more or less fun playing a game.  And since we've established that having fun is subjective, it by definition is not objective, and any analysis of a subset of the greater game (like a rule) cannot be objectively measured when talking in the context of what the point of games are.

My new dice are bigger than my old ones from the B/X boxed sets and are easier to read because the numbers are bigger.  That's objective.  But it's an analysis that has no relevancy on the game because the larger dice don't make me have any more fun.  GMD's logic is that the larger dice are objectively better, and what possible value do the smaller, harder to read dice have to offer.  Well, I enjoy using the older dice more.  Just like some people enjoy using THAC0 better.  There's your value.  Because for a game, enjoying it is the only real metric that matters.

Again this comes down to his broken mental process that can't seem to grasp that other people enjoy things he doesn't.  In fact, that seems to be a common trait shared among the goons; almost a requirement.  They are like a more potty-mouthed version of Sheldon from BBT.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;729949See also, 'damning with faint praise.'

No doubt there, but he isn't--to borrow his own phrasing--"objectively" terrible.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729914The relative speed of addition vs. subtraction isn't the point.

With descending AC, the target number to-hit is derived. It takes one more step to resolve than attacks vs. ascending AC. That is a fact.

Except that in 1e, there is no math involved at all.  You take the number the player gives you, and look at a chart.  Done.

Quote from: JRR;730002Except that in 1e, there is no math involved at all.  You take the number the player gives you, and look at a chart.  Done.

Hush, you and your "facts."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;729920Just makes me want to make an unholy abomination that includes BAB, descending AC, and roll under, just so more people can whine about the objective quality of things that are pretty subjective.

TN = BAB + Modifiers + AC, d20 roll under.

oddly, I actually do see benefits to it...

Yes, join the dark side, come to the empire! Mwa ha ha ha! :mad:

(actually it has been suiting my subjective bias campaigns for many years now. but, shhh! that's heretical.)

Just so I can say as a game designer that I participated in one of the most mentally stunted trolling arguments yet in regarding game design.

Lets see here then. AD&D
Im a MU level 5. Im trying to hit some whatever and the DM says roll vs AC 4.

I look at the chart and see I need a 17 or better. Bam. That is all there is to it.
Say I've got a +1 dagger. I roll and add 1. Bam and that is all there is to it. Same for the monsters.

Its all of 2 steps, 3 if you count adding bonus. And it changes very little if at all from one round to the next.

How the hell many steps are there for BAB? How many shifting +'s and -'s do you have to juggle every turn?

AD&D with its simple little charts is mechanically faster than BAB. Only THAC0 was faster and that was because it was pared down even simpler and could and was converted into a chart too. Objectively its faster too because of less incessant bonus juggling.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729922I claimed that ascending AC is an objectively better rule than descending AC. BAB and Thac0 are only by-products of these rules.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

Unfortunately, this is an incredibly common malady.

Quote from: Omega;730014Im a MU level 5. Im trying to hit some whatever and the DM says roll vs AC 4.

I look at the chart and see I need a 17 or better. Bam. That is all there is to it.
Say I've got a +1 dagger. I roll and add 1. Bam and that is all there is to it. Same for the monsters.

ng.

I am surprised you had the mental energy to continue playing, factoring in that +1 bonus only moments after looking at a chart. You must have been exhausted.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;729913I'm sorry..but all this seems to prove is that bonuses in OD&D are superfluous and counterintuitive. If you need a 20 to hit an AC of -1 and a 20 to hit an AC of -7, then what is the practical difference between -1 and -7?

No. Bonuses are rare and DON'T make the actual d20 roll superfluous. The practical difference is that, when designing a game that uses a d20, keeping most practical results within that range isn't such a crazy idea.

What is the practical difference? You are aware of the concept of more powerful characters/creatures having a better chances to hit right?

So to someone who needs a 20 to hit there isn't much difference. To someone that could hit on much less than 20, the difference is quite significant.

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

"You keep using that word."

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.mandatory.com/media/2013/09/anchorman-60percent.png)

Got to give it to him though: that's an awesome example of what the thread was actually talking about... at the beginning, long ago, in a Galaxy far, far away. :D

So, an anti anti edition warrior warrior?

Quote from: Old Geezer;730124So, an anti anti edition warrior warrior?

(http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/123844-1/Star_Trek_suicide.gif)

Quote from: JRR;730002Except that in 1e, there is no math involved at all.  You take the number the player gives you, and look at a chart.  Done.

That is not accurate.

Descending AC:

• You take the number the players gives you
• You cross reference the targets AC with the players level on a chart
• You compare the players result with the target number to determine success/failure

Step two can either happen before or after the attack roll, but it does have to happen.

versus:

Ascending AC

• You take the number that the player gives you
• You compare the player's result with the target number to determine success/failure.

You will notice that an entire step is missing from this process. That's because the target number in 3E is directly stated in the monster stats under "armor" class. In your example, the target number is arrived at by the extraneous step of cross referencing on a chart.

Now can you explain where this extra step adds value to the process?

Quote from: Omega;730014Just so I can say as a game designer that I participated in one of the most mentally stunted trolling arguments yet in regarding game design.

Lets see here then. AD&D
Im a MU level 5. Im trying to hit some whatever and the DM says roll vs AC 4.

I look at the chart and see I need a 17 or better. Bam. That is all there is to it.
Say I've got a +1 dagger. I roll and add 1. Bam and that is all there is to it. Same for the monsters.

Its all of 2 steps, 3 if you count adding bonus. And it changes very little if at all from one round to the next.

How the hell many steps are there for BAB? How many shifting +'s and -'s do you have to juggle every turn?

AD&D with its simple little charts is mechanically faster than BAB. Only THAC0 was faster and that was because it was pared down even simpler and could and was converted into a chart too. Objectively its faster too because of less incessant bonus juggling.

That is not accurate. People on the pro-descending AC argument keep forgetting the the target number to-hit in AD&D is derived, rather than stated.

With descending AC there are at lease three distinct operations:

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Derive target number, either through cross referencing on a chart or through a Thac0 calculation
• Compare result to target number

Ascending AC only has two distinct operations

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Compare result to a target number

Anyway you look at it, deriving the target number is an extra step. An extra step that doesn't add anything to gameplay, like say a hit location system would.

As for the incessant bonus juggling, this is a disingenuous argument.

• First, bonus stacking is merely an appendage to the rule of basic attack resolution, which is what this argument is about.
  
• Second, most bonuses in 3E are front loaded right on the character sheet and don't change from round-to-round. The exceptions are circumstantial modifiers and those from bolstering/debilitating spells.
  
• Third, circumstantial modifiers and bolstering/debilitating spells exist in AD&D as well as 3E.
  

Quote from: Brad;730035I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the word "objectively" means, much less that it doesn't apply to things that are inherently subjective.

Do you ever even try to make a cogent point, or do you just troll every argument you don't agree with.

Seriously, you're only arguments thus far has been this:

*scoff* "This guy! Amiright? Eh? Ehhh?"

And this:

"Can't hear you! LALALALALA"

But whatever. Here is an objective fact for you:

Attack rolls in D&D, classic and modern, are both designed to perform the exact same function: determine success of attacks on a binary pass/fail basis.

Here is another objective fact:

Attacks against ascending AC take two distinct operations to resolve.

Attacks against descending AC take three distinct operations to resolve.

These are objective facts, and not matters of opinion. If you can't agree with this, then you are either lying or insane.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730039No. Bonuses are rare and DON'T make the actual d20 roll superfluous. The practical difference is that, when designing a game that uses a d20, keeping most practical results within that range isn't such a crazy idea.

What is the practical difference? You are aware of the concept of more powerful characters/creatures having a better chances to hit right?

So to someone who needs a 20 to hit there isn't much difference. To someone that could hit on much less than 20, the difference is quite significant.

So...a character of X-level needs a 20 to hit an AC of -7, while a creature of Y-HD might only need a 17?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729962I should actually apologize, because I let myself get drawn into the topic that I've been saying isn't relevant at all.  IMO, it shouldn't even get to the point of what might be .00004 seconds faster or not, because it's not relevant at all.

The purpose of a game is to have fun
Having fun is subjective

Therefore, the only truly relevant rule is the one that allows one to have more or less fun playing a game.  And since we've established that having fun is subjective, it by definition is not objective, and any analysis of a subset of the greater game (like a rule) cannot be objectively measured when talking in the context of what the point of games are.

My new dice are bigger than my old ones from the B/X boxed sets and are easier to read because the numbers are bigger.  That's objective.  But it's an analysis that has no relevancy on the game because the larger dice don't make me have any more fun.  GMD's logic is that the larger dice are objectively better, and what possible value do the smaller, harder to read dice have to offer.  Well, I enjoy using the older dice more.  Just like some people enjoy using THAC0 better.  There's your value.  Because for a game, enjoying it is the only real metric that matters.

Again this comes down to his broken mental process that can't seem to grasp that other people enjoy things he doesn't.  In fact, that seems to be a common trait shared among the goons; almost a requirement.  They are like a more potty-mouthed version of Sheldon from BBT.

Like I said, one inferior rule does not invalidate the entire game. It's perfectly fine for people to enjoy classic D&D more than modern D&D. Both permutations are package deals and you accept them for what they are warts and all, because the whole of the package is ultimately more fun for you. I get that, and I'm not arguing against that.

All I'm arguing is that between two systems that are designed to perform the exact same function, one does the job faster and easier than the other, and suddenly people are acting like I pissed on their favorite bible.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730143That is not accurate. People on the pro-descending AC argument keep forgetting the the target number to-hit in AD&D is derived, rather than stated.

With descending AC there are at lease three distinct operations:

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Derive target number, either through cross referencing on a chart or through a Thac0 calculation
• Compare result to target number

Ascending AC only has two distinct operations

• Roll to attack, adding relevant modifiers
• Compare result to a target number

Anyway you look at it, deriving the target number is an extra step. An extra step that doesn't add anything to gameplay, like say a hit location system would.

As for the incessant bonus juggling, this is a disingenuous argument.

• First, bonus stacking is merely an appendage to the rule of basic attack resolution, which is what this argument is about.
  
• Second, most bonuses in 3E are front loaded right on the character sheet and don't change from round-to-round. The exceptions are circumstantial modifiers and those from bolstering/debilitating spells.
  
• Third, circumstantial modifiers and bolstering/debilitating spells exist in AD&D as well as 3E.
  

Yah riiight.
No. WRONG!

AD&D
A: GM states target AC.
B: Player refferences chart for number to =/>
C: Player rolls. Its a hit or a miss.
Possibly with a D: add bonus, which tends to be static so once you know it, you know it.

BAB
A: Roll attack
B: add static bonuses:
C: Add bonuses that change from round to round.
D: GM applies bonuses to target number because they get them too sometimes and they too can change from round to round
E: GM states target number. (This really should be first.) Hit or miss.

THAC0
A: THAC0 minus target AC
B: Add bonuses which like in AD&D tend to be relatively unchanging.

I may not like THAC0 overly. It just does not click for me. BUT as a game designer I know it is about as simple as it gets if you can do basic math in your head. And becomes absurdly simple if converted to a chart for quick glance. AD&D and 2nd ed are just that easy since they work at a glance at a table.

Back on subject.
Gizmo here exemplafies my previous example of edition warriors who set up on others a reflex negative reaction because hes trolling like there is no tomorrow.

This is truly the shiniest of all hamster wheels.

OD&D:

Player rolls d20, adds any appropriate bonus.
Player tells number to referee.
Referee looks number up on chart and informs player if she hit.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730159OD&D:

Player rolls d20, adds any appropriate bonus.
Player tells number to referee.
Referee looks number up on chart and informs player if she hit.

A&B are one step really.

and thats how I GMed AD&D early on when I was the only one GMing and it was easier to just have everyone roll and then call hit/miss.

Quote from: Imp;730158This is truly the shiniest of all hamster wheels.

That's great, I'm going to have to steal it at some point.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730134(http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/123844-1/Star_Trek_suicide.gif)

Look, I've been waiting to make that joke since the thread started.

Quote from: Omega;730156Yah riiight.
No. WRONG!

AD&D
A: GM states target AC.
B: Player refferences chart for number to =/>
C: Player rolls. Its a hit or a miss.
Possibly with a D: add bonus, which tends to be static so once you know it, you know it.

BAB
A: Roll attack
B: add static bonuses:
C: Add bonuses that change from round to round.
D: GM applies bonuses to target number because they get them too sometimes and they too can change from round to round
E: GM states target number. (This really should be first.) Hit or miss.

THAC0
A: THAC0 minus target AC
B: Add bonuses which like in AD&D tend to be relatively unchanging.

I may not like THAC0 overly. It just does not click for me. BUT as a game designer I know it is about as simple as it gets if you can do basic math in your head. And becomes absurdly simple if converted to a chart for quick glance. AD&D and 2nd ed are just that easy since they work at a glance at a table.

Back on subject.
Gizmo here exemplafies my previous example of edition warriors who set up on others a reflex negative reaction because hes trolling like there is no tomorrow.

That is complete bullshit.

Firstly, you are artificially separating one function into two.

Secondly, you are overestimating the amount of bonus yoyo-ing involved with 3E, and ignoring the fact that classic D&D also has circumstantial modifiers.

Thirdly, this is not an edition war. It's about one rule. I'm not advocating one edition over another, just one singular rule.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730144Attacks against ascending AC take two distinct operations to resolve.
Attacks against descending AC take three distinct operations to resolve.

These are objective facts, and not matters of opinion.

Let'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?

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.

Tell you what then - if you can name one rule - just one rule that you feel is better handled in 3E or 4E than it is in AD&D 1st edition, without irony or snark, then I will concede defeat, apologize and leave this thread for good.

Quote from: Benoist;730277It'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.

Yes - my preference for C&C is entirely subjective.

I do not however believe that ascending AC's superiority of descending AC is.

Also, the issue with the SIEGE engine refers to skills, not combat resolution.

Quote from: Benoist;730277No, 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.

There's no rule in 3E that states you have to reveal the target's AC to the player. So this is a non-issue.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730279Tell you what then - if you can name one rule - just one rule that you feel is better handled in 3E or 4E than it is in AD&D 1st edition, without irony or snark, then I will concede defeat, apologize and leave this thread for good.

I Know this wasn't addressed to me, but I genuinely think the multi classing rules are great in 3E and prefer them to the 2E multi classing rules. They do come at the cost of the potential for abuse or odd combos, but just in terms of ease of use and flexibility, I love 3E multi classing (in fact I almost never make multi class characters in AD&D because I find it aggravating).

I think the point you are missing here is people are not saying they like AD&D despite the presence of matrices or, in the case of 2E, thac0. Some of us are saying we actually like it, in part, because of these things. We genuinely prefer looking at a number on a chart with smaller modifiers than using BAB.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730281I Know this wasn't addressed to me, but I genuinely think the multi classing rules are great in 3E and prefer them to the 2E multi classing rules. They do come at the cost of the potential for abuse or odd combos, but just in terms of ease of use and flexibility, I love 3E multi classing (in fact I almost never make multi class characters in AD&D because I find it aggravating).

I disagree. I like AD&D's multi-class rules better. No cherry-picking, no character planning - just set your path and you're done - at least with demi-humans.

I'd still love to hear what if anything Benoist feels is done better in 3e or 4E than in 1st edition though.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730281I think the point you are missing here is people are not saying they like AD&D despite the presence of matrices or, in the case of 2E, thac0. Some of us are saying we actually like it, in part, because of these things. We genuinely prefer looking at a number on a chart with smaller modifiers than using BAB.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that it's that difficult to add two double digit numbers together. We're talking second grade math. I still think it has more to do with AD&D as a whole, than one specific rule.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730279Tell you what then - if you can name one rule - just one rule that you feel is better handled in 3E or 4E than it is in AD&D 1st edition, without irony or snark, then I will concede defeat, apologize and leave this thread for good.

Unarmed combat in 3rd ed versus 1E.

Quote from: Benoist;730284Unarmed combat in 3rd ed versus 1E.

Thank you.

In addition to multi-classing, I like reaction adjustments in AD&D way better than than diplomacy and intimidate skill checks.

Anyway, I concede the point. Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is entirely subjective, and I've been obstinately full of shit this entire time. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

Quote from: Benoist;730284Unarmed combat in 3rd ed versus 1E.

I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730283I'm sorry but I don't buy that it's that difficult to add two double digit numbers together. We're talking second grade math. I still think it has more to do with AD&D as a whole, than one specific rule.

Hey man you were the one arguing subtraction is hard. I am just saying I find it easier and less time consuming to look at a number on a tracker and have an addition or subtraction that does occur be smaller. Basically, small numbers are easier to work with than big ones. Sure, adding 17 to 12 isn't hard, but it will also take a moment. And even if you happen to be good at it, it is annoying waiting for someone else to add 17 and 12 who isn't. Especially when BAB changes from attack to attack and looks like +17/+12/+7/+2. And you will still have to take the time with BAB to look at your actual BAB which is on a char (unless you write it on your sheet).

QuoteI don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Well, there's a couple of goofy charts in the DMG, and alternately there's the percentile-dice thing in Unearthed Arcana, which is less goofy but overcomplicated.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730286I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

But that chart kicks ass! It's so easy in practice and exploding with flavor (and it gives me a wild goose chase to hand off to martial art fanbois to get them out of my hair!).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730286I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Non-lethal and weaponless combat procedures, DMG page 72+. 3rd ed has nothing on the needless bean-counting complexity of those rules in AD&D.

IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;730293Non-lethal and weaponless combat procedures, DMG page 72+. 3rd ed has nothing on the needless bean-counting complexity of those rules in AD&D.

IMO.

Reading this secition it is definitely quite involved.

Quote from: Opaopajr;730292But that chart kicks ass! It's so easy in practice and exploding with flavor (and it gives me a wild goose chase to hand off to martial art fanbois to get them out of my hair!).

I love almost everything about 2E, and i really tried to love that chart....but i can't. I just can't.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285Thank you.

Very welcome.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285In addition to multi-classing, I like reaction adjustments in AD&D way better than than diplomacy and intimidate skill checks.

I like reaction adjustments on d% too. Speaking of unarmed combat and percentiles, I prefer to use the resistance table of Chaosium games in conjunction with standard d20 rolls to determine hits, then grappling, overbearing, whatnot by oppositions. It works well in practice.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285Anyway, I concede the point. Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is entirely subjective, and I've been obstinately full of shit this entire time. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

Now it's my turn to thank you. Thank you.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730286I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Sorta-kinda. Roughly as silly, anyhow. Maybe more complicated even. It involved percentiles.

I'd say that the one thing the Skills & Powers stuff did get 100% right was unarmed combat rules - wich was pretty much moved over unchanged to 3e (no more charts stuff, an unarmed attack does d2 dmg or d3 if trained basically, etc etc).

count me as one of the guys who liked how 1e did unarmed combat (especially Oriental Adventures) and hate the way 2e did it with the chart.  No one I played with liked the 2e chart, and unarmed combat virtually ceased to exist in our 2e games because of that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730395count me as one of the guys who liked how 1e did unarmed combat (especially Oriental Adventures) and hate the way 2e did it with the chart.  No one I played with liked the 2e chart, and unarmed combat virtually ceased to exist in our 2e games because of that.

OA martial arts, while ridiculous in its power level, were simple to play with.

The grappling/pummeling/overbearing mess from AD&D was a poster child for the 'needless complication' concept. We ended up using a much simpler system from The Dragon.

I'll admit to knowing nothing* about the Oriental Adventures unarmed combat system. :o

*=unless it's similar to the one in Complete Ninja's Handbook (wich I read like 20 years ago but vaguely remember as being pretty cool if very powerful).

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730144Do you ever even try to make a cogent point, or do you just troll every argument you don't agree with.

I find it hilarious that a troll is complaining about being trolled.

Quote from: The Ent;730399I'll admit to knowing nothing* about the Oriental Adventures unarmed combat system. :o

*=unless it's similar to the one in Complete Ninja's Handbook (wich I read like 20 years ago but vaguely remember as being pretty cool if very powerful).

Keep in mind that it's been an age since I opened that book, but if my memory serves,  In OA, you chose a  martial arts style (kung fu, ninjitsu, karate, etc) and a series of maneuvers (like flying kick, backfist, ironskin, etc).  You used prof slots to choose these.

Rather than roll on a chart to see what you did, you chose which maneuver you would do based on your learned maneuvers.  Each maneuver had it's own description and damage modifier.  Some maneuvers were passive benefits (like ironskin).

So if you learned Tae Kwon Do and learned flying kick, snap kick, and back kick, you could declare your attack with any of those maneuvers.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730401So if you learned Tae Kwon Do and learned flying kick, snap kick, and back kick, you could declare your attack with any of those maneuvers.

How about "Boot to the head?"

Quote from: Old Geezer;730424How about "Boot to the head?"

The Ti Kwan Leep style is reserved for masters of name level or higher.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730424How about "Boot to the head?"

Are you Ed Grubermann?

Wisdom from John Kovalic's Dork Tower.

(http://www.dorktower.com/files/2014/02/DorkTower1172.gif)

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285Anyway, I concede the point. Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is entirely subjective, and I've been obstinately full of shit this entire time. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

I don't think anyone wants you to leave the thread.  I've seen hostility on this board before, and what you've been getting ain't it.

While your 2 vs. 3 steps issue may be objective, which is 'faster' is based on how fast those operations are for a *particular individual*.  Which is more 'intuitive' is based (pretty much by definition) on previous experience and expectations.  That makes 'faster' and 'more intuitive' subjective.

I don't think you've been 'full of shit'.  I think the only thing you've done is presume that certain things being 'faster' or 'more intuitive' is universal.

One advantage of chart-based to-hit is that the charts don't have to be strictly linear (and, in fact, AD&D 1e charts *aren't* perfectly linear).

I think Jeff won the thread.

Quote from: jeff37923;730428Are you Ed Grubermann?

Over on TBP I told somebody once "You have learned wisdom, Ed Gruberman" and their reply about two hours later was "I had to Google that to find out what the hell you were talking about."

I cried.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730435Over on TBP I told somebody once "You have learned wisdom, Ed Gruberman" and their reply about two hours later was "I had to Google that to find out what the hell you were talking about."

I cried.

Because it should be assumed everyone knows obscure mid-80s Canadian comedy?

Quote from: robiswrong;730430I don't think you've been 'full of shit'.  I think the only thing you've done is presume that certain things being 'faster' or 'more intuitive' is universal.

I asked my girlfriend, formerly a middle school teacher (math and science), which is faster to do: addition or subtraction. She said addition, but when I asked her why, the answer was, "Because we do that a lot more in school". Hence, "intuition" has fuck-all to do with it: people practice addition more, hence they can usually add more quickly than subtracting. If you're remotely good at math, the idea that adding or subtracting is easier is essentially meaningless. Faster is also purely subjective if you've gone beyond 8th grade mathematics.

The argument of "addition is objectively better than subtraction" is couched in the fact that people practice addition more in grade school. So, does this mean jerking off is objectively better than sex because I masturbated a lot more when I was younger?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730436Because it should be assumed everyone knows obscure mid-80s Canadian comedy?

It wasn't obscure if you listened to the Dr. Demento Show on the radio.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. If I used THAC0 I'd probably see the point of worrying about ascending vs. descending, but my interest in D&D coincides with the table-lookup editions. I'm not sure there's a simple way to handle the repeating 20s of AD&D 1e without using a table, so might as well stick with them.

At the same it's surely the case that without the repeating 20s, you could present the same algorithm in both tabular and nontabular form. Furthermore given that without the repeating 20s, each column in the hit tables is indeed linear, you could just have an ascending base defense value for each armor "category" with corresponding bonuses per attacker type. And I can't really think of a good reason other than familiarity not to do it this way (other than the repeating 20s). Maybe some people's minds work differently but I'm very skeptical. I think if you were to present the BECMI hit tables (minus the numerical ACs, using just descriptions for each line) to people with no prior gaming experience and ask them to come up with a nontabular procedure that accomplishes the same thing, very few of them would think of assigning a descending value to the armor categories as a useful step.

In short it's not a big deal (in response to someone who claims old-school D&D is idiotic) but it's equally puzzling that anyone should choose this as a cross to die on.

Quote from: Brad;730437The argument of "addition is objectively better than subtraction" is couched in the fact that people practice addition more in grade school. So, does this mean jerking off is objectively better than sex because I masturbated a lot more when I was younger?

No, masterbation is objectively superior because it has fewer operations.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730441No, masterbation is objectively superior because it has fewer operations.

As a married man, sometimes I see temptation in this attitude ...

Quote from: jeff37923;730438It wasn't obscure if you listened to the Dr. Demento Show on the radio.

I listened to Dr. Demento.  Not all the time, grant you.  And that was more than 20 years ago to boot.  The only reason I knew about him was because I was (am) a big Weird Al fan and know Weird Al's history.

But expecting Joe random dude on the internet in the 2000s to know a very obscure mid 80s reference seems pretty odd*.  And yes, Dr. Demento is pretty obscure to the majority of people these days.  It would be like me making a Muppets reference to the Nylons, and expressing dismay that not everyone knew what I was talking about.


*unless OG's comment about crying was not due to someone not getting the reference, but due to the realization that he's so old no one knows what he's talking about anymore.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730444But expecting Joe random dude on the internet in the 2000s to know a very obscure mid 80s reference seems pretty odd*.  And yes, Dr. Demento is pretty obscure to the majority of people these days.  It would be like me making a Muppets reference to the Nylons, and expressing dismay that not everyone knew what I was talking about.

The big problem is as media outlets multiply, and the window of reruns and replays grows narrower and narrower, pop-culture now is so spread out that fewer and fewer people will get references, simply because the audiences are smaller and there's not any time for reruns.  (Fewer shows enter syndication and most of the repeats now air on a single cable channel, and it's rare to see reality shows repeated).  Most of us got Star Trek and Gilligan's Island and Leave it to Beaver because they were rerun ad-nauseum on UHF for over a decade...but are people going to remember references (just thinking of pop-culture in general without judgement) to Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Jersey Shore, American Idol, Adult Swim, The Voice, Duck Dynasty, several CW shows, etc., as well as they remembered TV of the 60s and 70s...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730444*unless OG's comment about crying was not due to someone not getting the reference, but due to the realization that he's so old no one knows what he's talking about anymore.

Why not both!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730444. . . the realization that he's so old no one knows what he's talking about anymore.

I had that moment when I was teaching marine biology and realised I had to explain who Jacques Cousteau was to my students.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730401Keep in mind that it's been an age since I opened that book, but if my memory serves,  In OA, you chose a  martial arts style (kung fu, ninjitsu, karate, etc) and a series of maneuvers (like flying kick, backfist, ironskin, etc).  You used prof slots to choose these.

Rather than roll on a chart to see what you did, you chose which maneuver you would do based on your learned maneuvers.  Each maneuver had it's own description and damage modifier.  Some maneuvers were passive benefits (like ironskin).

So if you learned Tae Kwon Do and learned flying kick, snap kick, and back kick, you could declare your attack with any of those maneuvers.

That stuff sounds both cool and atmospheric*! :)

...another reason for me to Get my hands on that Book, sooner or later :D

*=Even if in a "stuff me and my generation and the one before thought was awesome in not-that-good movies" way! :D But that's not bad at all.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730465I had that moment when I was teaching marine biology and realised I had to explain who Jacques Cousteau was to my students.

:eek:

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730465I had that moment when I was teaching marine biology and realised I had to explain who Jacques Cousteau was to my students.

Dude. That is hardcore, right there.

Quote from: Old Geezer;730471:eek:

My students were in grade school when he died.

Their only frame of reference on him was The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

* puts head on desk and covers head with arms *

Fuck, I am so old...

Quote from: The Ent;730467That stuff sounds both cool and atmospheric*! :)

...another reason for me to Get my hands on that Book, sooner or later :D

*=Even if in a "stuff me and my generation and the one before thought was awesome in not-that-good movies" way! :D But that's not bad at all.

No not bad at all-unless you are a weapon using fighter and the karate fighter with iron fist kicks your ass.

3 attacks per round at 1-10 + STR bonus each. You are left with nothing to do but go back to your lousy master and tell him who beat you up. :rotfl:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730505No not bad at all-unless you are a weapon using fighter and the karate fighter with iron fist kicks your ass.

3 attacks per round at 1-10 + STR bonus each. You are left with nothing to do but go back to your lousy master and tell him who beat you up. :rotfl:

Nah.  You forget that if you're attacking with fists, only 25% of the damage is real, and your opponent with a weapon always goes first.  And if you're at 3 attacks per round, so is your opponent (assuming equal level).  

Guy with sword still wins, since it's probably a magical sword he's using as well at that level.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730441No, masterbation is objectively superior because it has fewer operations.

No no no! We must use Gizmo's theorem for this.

Sex
A: Find woman. Persuade woman into boinking. Find place to boink. Remove clothes. Insert tab A into slot B
B: Boink boink boink

Mastrubation
A: Think happy thoughts
B: add modifiers + Magazines
C: subtract modiefiers - clothes
D: Apply friction.

So obviously sex is objectively better than masturbation.
:o

Quote from: Omega;730523No no no! We must use Gizmo's theorem for this.

Sex
A: Find woman. Persuade woman into boinking. Find place to boink. Remove clothes. Insert tab A into slot B
B: Boink boink boink

Mastrubation
A: Think happy thoughts
B: add modifiers + Magazines
C: subtract modiefiers - clothes
D: Apply friction.

So obviously sex is objectively better than masturbation.
:o

Your forgot to look up the THAC0 score. That adds at least one additional step.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730505No not bad at all-unless you are a weapon using fighter and the karate fighter with iron fist kicks your ass.

3 attacks per round at 1-10 + STR bonus each. You are left with nothing to do but go back to your lousy master and tell him who beat you up. :rotfl:

:D

Doesn't sound bad - but won't the Iron fist guy be facing down Katana specialist dudes at some point? I mean this does sound badass, but not worse than some samurai hooligan dual-wielding Katana :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730509Nah.  You forget that if you're attacking with fists, only 25% of the damage is real, and your opponent with a weapon always goes first.  And if you're at 3 attacks per round, so is your opponent (assuming equal level).  

Guy with sword still wins, since it's probably a magical sword he's using as well at that level.

Subdual attempts must be declared as such. OA p100.

 At that level? I'm talking 1st level. It only takes 2 prof. slots to get a style and a difficulty 1 maneuver (Iron fist). When closing the longer weapon might get the first attack, but once melee is joined it is down to regular initiative.

OA martial arts are a ton of fun but they are beyond overpowered compared to poor weapon users without a super awesome magic weapon.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730530Subdual attempts must be declared as such. OA p100.

 At that level? I'm talking 1st level. It only takes 2 prof. slots to get a style and a difficulty 1 maneuver (Iron fist). When closing the longer weapon might get the first attack, but once melee is joined it is down to regular initiative.

OA martial arts are a ton of fun but they are beyond overpowered compared to poor weapon users without a super awesome magic weapon.

I'm talking about what's in the DMG, and nothing in OA I could find overrides the rules for pummeling.  How are you getting the 3 attacks per round at level 1?

Quote from: Old Geezer;730484* puts head on desk and covers head with arms *

Fuck, I am so old...

I had that feeling recently talking to co-workers in their early 20s (I'm 44).  I was talking about seeing commercials during prime-time newscasts that looked like the same quality of UHF ads...

...Girl goes to me "I don't know what that is".  The only person who vaguely knew what it was had seen the Weird Al UHF movie from 1989.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730465I had that moment when I was teaching marine biology and realised I had to explain who Jacques Cousteau was to my students.

You would think that marine biologists in training would know that Jacques Cousteau and Ian Anderson co-invented the aqualung.

Quote from: talysman;730542You would think that marine biologists in training would know that Jacques Cousteau and Ian Anderson co-invented the aqualung.

Also the park bench.

Quote from: talysman;730542You would think that marine biologists in training would know that Jacques Cousteau and Ian Anderson co-invented the aqualung.

Survey course, for the liberal arts kids who like dolphins.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730535I'm talking about what's in the DMG, and nothing in OA I could find overrides the rules for pummeling.  How are you getting the 3 attacks per round at level 1?

Do a monk's attacks all count as subdual? I don't think so. Per subdual (DMG p67) the intent to subdue has to be stated. It also says that subdual damage never applies to PCs. That would mean that regular attacks with any weapon or unarmed do actual damage unless the intent to subdue is announced.  


3 attacks per round at level 1:

Choosing a martial arts style takes 1 prof. slot. For that 1 slot you get the basic #AT/dmg per round of the style (oh and natural AC8 to boot) and no maneuvers.

This is explained in OA under Leraning Martial Arts p 106.

It also costs 1 prof. slot for each maneuver or weapon in the style that the character wishes to learn. All rank 1 maneuvers have to be learned before any rank 2 and so forth.

A level 1 fighter or bushi has 4 prof. slots. For two of those he can learn karate and iron fist which is the first rank strike maneuver. This gives the fighter 3 punches for a base 1d10 damage each. He can use his remaining two slots to specialize in the sword.

A katana also does 1-10 vs S/M opponents.

So our fighter could choose to attack 3/2 at +1 to hit and 1-10 +2 damage (sans STR bonus) with a sword

OR

3/1 at no extra bonus to hit and 1-10 each (sans STR) with his fists.

pg 67 of the DMG talks about subdual in general, using non lethal parts of a weapon.  Page 72 is what you want, where it talks about weaponless combat, and specifically says that pummeling is only 25% real damage.

And yes, I would consider a monk's open hand damage to be exempt from this because it's a class feature.  Something that particular class is specialized in.  

And as mentioned, unarmed attackers always go last against an armed attacker, as per the DMG.  So that 1st level fighter double spec'd with his katana, always going first, makes the fight not nearly as one sided as you're thinking.

OA martial arts played the way Exploderwizard is describing. I agree they are pretty fun, but it's basically a whole alternate melee combat system. And I do not remotely recall that they somehow count as subdual damage in whole or in part, or are otherwise at all stymied by armed opponents.

Quote from: Imp;730569OA martial arts played the way Exploderwizard is describing. I agree they are pretty fun, but it's basically a whole alternate melee combat system. And I do not remotely recall that they somehow count as subdual damage in whole or in part, or are otherwise at all stymied by armed opponents.

Obviously there's a difference of interpretation.  That never happens in AD&D... ;)


The reasoning behind my group interpreting MA damage in OA as subdual damage was based on:

a) the rules in the DMG around weaponless combat
b) it seemed crazy powerful to assume it was real damage like a weapon

*edit:  And when 2e further codified the rules that unarmed attacks were only 25% real damage, it made sense because that's how we were playing it anyway.  It explicitly states that for martial arts attacks (in the complete ninja's handbook for instance), that only 25% of damage is normal.

Quote from: talysman;730542You would think that marine biologists in training would know that Jacques Cousteau and Ian Anderson co-invented the aqualung.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;730553Survey course, for the liberal arts kids who like dolphins.

Play this for them. That way, they can also tell people they studied classical music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgsUXUBpS8Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgsUXUBpS8Q)

Adding is a better choice in game design because counting upwards is far more ingrained in people than counting backwards. We don't studying counting down as much as we study counting up.

Back when I taught, I hammered subtraction and negative number math into my students to overcome the imbalance compared to addition and positive number math. I believe my years of THAC0 did help a lot with my early math skills, but that's not a reason to inflict it on players today.

That said, rolling under a percentage is even easier for players because its easier for them to visualize the odds (it says it right there in the skill %) and the success or failure is instantly recognizable on the immediate dice roll.

Thus, BRP wins the math round of the edition war.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730571Obviously there's a difference of interpretation.  That never happens in AD&D... ;)

What!? That can't be true!!!:D

Quote from: SacrosanctThe reasoning behind my group interpreting MA damage in OA as subdual damage was based on:

a) the rules in the DMG around weaponless combat
b) it seemed crazy powerful to assume it was real damage like a weapon

*edit:  And when 2e further codified the rules that unarmed attacks were only 25% real damage, it made sense because that's how we were playing it anyway.  It explicitly states that for martial arts attacks (in the complete ninja's handbook for instance), that only 25% of damage is normal.

Sounds good.

I became a fairly big fan of the Skills & Powers unarmed combat system wich basically changed 2e unarmed combat from "charming but weird and involved tables" to "very simple" (and kept it definitely inferior to armed combat allthough less so than earlier in that specializing in unarmed combat would make those horrible attacks of opportunity (that'd allow say a dude with a knife, say, to absolutely slaughter a nonspecialized brawler) go away. Still specializing in say fist-focused unarmed combat would be say roughly on level with specializing in daggers, except somewhat weaker ;)

I wouldn't mind a more spectacular/over the top martial arts system though, I think it has its place in D&D. Well East Asian-flavored D&D, anyway, of course.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730568pg 67 of the DMG talks about subdual in general, using non lethal parts of a weapon.  Page 72 is what you want, where it talks about weaponless combat, and specifically says that pummeling is only 25% real damage.

And yes, I would consider a monk's open hand damage to be exempt from this because it's a class feature.  Something that particular class is specialized in.  

In OA the monk was overhauled. The monk uses a martial style like anyone else but they get aditional attacks and abilities. The monk's kung-fu is the same as that of a bushi and the damage caused by it is actual damage. This is because a martial style is not "pummeling".

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730568And as mentioned, unarmed attackers always go last against an armed attacker, as per the DMG.  So that 1st level fighter double spec'd with his katana, always going first, makes the fight not nearly as one sided as you're thinking.

During a round in which someone is charging yes the longer weapon gains initiative. Once combat is joined it is all down to the die roll. In case of a tie, speed factor determines who strikes first. In that case it will be the open handed fighter. See [Simultaneous Initiative] on p66 of the DMG. As an added slap to the face (literally!) A speed factor 1 unarmed attack against ANY speed factor higher than 1 will be entitled to extra attacks.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730571b) it seemed crazy powerful to assume it was real damage like a weapon

Yes it was. That was kind of my point. OA martial arts were very flavorful, and loads of fun, as well as being overpowered as all hell.

So...1e OA can be just as "anime"* as 4e, then? :D

*=by wich I mean, Fist of the North Star. :D

...I'm not really complaining, mind you! :)

Quote from: The Ent;730637So...1e OA can be just as "anime"* as 4e, then? :D

*=by wich I mean, Fist of the North Star. :D

...I'm not really complaining, mind you! :)

Kind of.  I always envisioned OA martial arts as classic kung-fu movies. Mysterious masters with mystical styles that taught feats such as ironskin, the eagle claw and so forth.

" Who in the hell teaches you kung-fu? You don't know a thing!"

" For some who is a Shaolin monk, your kung-fu is pretty lousy!"

" Heh. You're kung-fu is useless against me!"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730649Kind of.  I always envisioned OA martial arts as classic kung-fu movies. Mysterious masters with mystical styles that taught feats such as ironskin, the eagle claw and so forth.

" Who in the hell teaches you kung-fu? You don't know a thing!"

" For some who is a Shaolin monk, your kung-fu is pretty lousy!"

" Heh. You're kung-fu is useless against me!"

Yep! Just like that!

"The art of fighting without fighting!" [beat] "wheeeeeeee" (kills everything)

I have a huge soft spot for that sorta thing (and wuxia too. There's a plenty wuxia-esque swordsman class in OA, amirite? :))

All good! :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730649Kind of.  I always envisioned OA martial arts as classic kung-fu movies. Mysterious masters with mystical styles that taught feats such as ironskin, the eagle claw and so forth.

" Who in the hell teaches you kung-fu? You don't know a thing!"

" For some who is a Shaolin monk, your kung-fu is pretty lousy!"

" Heh. You're kung-fu is useless against me!"

That was actually the intent.  Not to mirror "real" martial arts, but to emulate kung fu movies.

Now before someone says Gary was all for the disassociated wonder powers that ended up being 4e, I think it's fair to say that with martial arts in OA, it was very much a "time and a place for that stuff" with Gary.  I don't know for sure, obviously, but I have a good feeling that all the gonzo flying squirrel stuff in OA was meant to stay in Kara Tur and not replace the "core" D&D, if that makes sense.  I.e., I'm sure he didn't intend everyone to replace their current PHB monks with OA versions (the Dragon magazine monk was better anyway, but I digress), or to have parties full of kensai and shape shifting whatever the heck that race was.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730662That was actually the intent.  Not to mirror "real" martial arts, but to emulate kung fu movies.

Now before someone says Gary was all for the disassociated wonder powers that ended up being 4e, I think it's fair to say that with martial arts in OA, it was very much a "time and a place for that stuff" with Gary.  I don't know for sure, obviously, but I have a good feeling that all the gonzo flying squirrel stuff in OA was meant to stay in Kara Tur and not replace the "core" D&D, if that makes sense.  I.e., I'm sure he didn't intend everyone to replace their current PHB monks with OA versions (the Dragon magazine monk was better anyway, but I digress), or to have parties full of kensai and shape shifting whatever the heck that race was.

I can't stand 4E aedu, but kung fu rpgs are the one place where i am cool with powers of that sort because it really fits how things work in kung fu movies. A lot of the kung fu techniques in these films are powers that get called out, and i thini it fits. So what you say here about a time and place for certain approaches makes total sense to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730680I can't stand 4E aedu, but kung fu rpgs are the one place where i am cool with powers of that sort because it really fits how things work in kung fu movies. A lot of the kung fu techniques in these films are powers that get called out, and i thini it fits. So what you say here about a time and place for certain approaches makes total sense to me.

I think it does.  Especially with a module like Expedition to Barrier Peaks.  Clearly Gary was all for experimenting with other genres into the D&D mechanics, but they were just that: experiments or one-offs because the idea sounded fun, not a replacement for the core D&D game.

Rules that I do not like become totally cool if I accidentally like them in one instance (preferably during my teen years) whereupon I shall declare them an exception and thus totally cool to still like today in that one instance!!!

Quote from: Spinachcat;730759Rules that I do not like become totally cool if I accidentally like them in one instance (preferably during my teen years) whereupon I shall declare them an exception and thus totally cool to still like today in that one instance!!!

I never really got into OA in my teens. I have just always felt some of the more weebo stuff fits certain genres. For standard D&D I expect certain things, for variations I expect something different. For example, normally I hate fast heal rates like you have with HS or the HD mechanic in next. Doesn't fit my standard D&D campaign. But when I ran wuxia 3E I used something like HD that healed you every hour and explained it as Qi.

Quote from: Spinachcat;730759Rules that I do not like become totally cool if I accidentally like them in one instance (preferably during my teen years) whereupon I shall declare them an exception and thus totally cool to still like today in that one instance!!!

I enjoyed OA back in the day as an occasional break into the gonzo style.  That doesn't mean I want that gonzo style anywhere near the core rules of D&D.  Just like playing EtoBP was a cool side adventure, but I don't want laser guns anywhere near my core D&D.

I played almost every game known to gamers, some good some bad.  It all depends on the games theme and the mechanics too a degree if I enjoy a game and who is the GM at the time.  But all in all I will play any game except a LAARP.  I never seen the point in bashing a game or the people that play it, hell someday I might meet that person I bashed their game at a con and I might end up playing in a game with them and enjoy it, and look like an ass and that's bad karma.

Quote from: flyingcircus;730800I played almost every game known to gamers . . .

O RLY? (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/)

4e is D&D. 4e is what D&D had been claiming to be for 25 years and then cruelly disappointing the people who tried playing it who wanted to play the game that was promised.

This isn't edition warring. No sir.

Quote from: One Horse Town;7309284e is D&D. 4e is what D&D had been claiming to be for 25 years and then cruelly disappointing the people who tried playing it who wanted to play the game that was promised.

This isn't edition warring. No sir.

Sounds like something outta TBP.

Quote from: One Horse Town;7309284e is D&D. 4e is what D&D had been claiming to be for 25 years and then cruelly disappointing the people who tried playing it who wanted to play the game that was promised.

This isn't edition warring. No sir.

Who said this?

there seriously needs to be like, a reverse grogs.txt for quotes like this. Like all those Twitter _TXT accounts.

Quote from: J Arcane;730930Who said this?

there seriously needs to be like, a reverse grogs.txt for quotes like this. Like all those Twitter _TXT accounts.

Strangely enough, the Goon called Neonchameleon.

Quote from: One Horse Town;730932Strangely enough, the Goon called Neonchameleon.

On SA, or somewhere usefully linkable?

Can we pick this apart?

Quote from: Neonchameleon by way of One Horse Town;7309284e is D&D.

It's got "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, I'll give him that.

Quote from: Neonchameleon by way of One Horse Town;7309284e is what D&D had been claiming to be for 25 years and then cruelly disappointing the people who tried playing it who wanted to play the game that was promised.

4e came out in what, 2008? That would mean that D&D "had been claiming to be" what 4e is since 1983?

1983 would be the year the AD&D 1e books got reprinted with Jeff Easley covers, and the "straight" or "classic" or "basic" D&D game saw the re-release of the Basic set as the classic "red box" and the Expert set as "blue box". There were merely trade dress changes and the text of AD&D and B/X D&D remained the same.

The sole new "core" product was the Companion set, which did introduce quite a bit of novelty into B/X D&D... but of a very different sort that 4e would bring 25 years later.

Pity the author of this tirade didn't bother posting somewhere people might actually disagree with him and conduct an exchange in good faith. Because as it stands, I have a hard time understanding what is it that the game "promised" him 25 years ago, that it took D&D 4e to pull it off.

Quote from: One Horse Town;730928This isn't edition warring. No sir.

At the heart of edition warring, I think, is the idea that one version of D&D must be Objectively Better because one likes it better than the others. Which is, again, a way of saying that one is a smarter and more sophisticated gamer than the mass of stupid and undiscerning sheeple playing other editions. Or a variation on the ever-popular theme of why wasn't I consulted (http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html) (as defined by Paul Ford on the linked article).

This is why I don't believe edition warring leads anywhere. I could be playing freeform with my friends (one of the guys from my old group is doing this with his kid) and we'd still be chugging beer and wine and eating snacks and having fun; I choose to employ a ruleset because good rulesets offer interesting constraints, non-zero-sum conditions, randomizers, unforeseen consequences and a load of other gimmicks that enhance our experience.

The sole purpose of the hobby community and industry is to enhance your experience at the game table.

All the bitching about 3.0e and 3.5e in the world didn't contribute one iota to what happened at my game table. It was with Castles & Crusades, followed closely by the first batch of retro-clones, that things started to get really interesting. Sure, there were people putting out old school material at Dragonsfoot (which I didn't know about) and Vaults of Pandius (which seemed far more focused on Mystara as a setting, than on BECMI/RC D&D as system), but it was circa 2006-2007 that things seemed to really pick up.

Likewise, it was other people's enthusiasm towards Savage Worlds that got me to try it, rather than bitching against GURPS or Hero or whatever. The same sort of enthusiasm got me to try Fate, and when it didn't work for me, instead of bitching about it, I went off to read and play other games.

I do not think all games and gaming material are created equal. I am not advocating that we cease criticism of that which we don't like. I merely ponder that criticism is not the same as bitching. Feel free to vent your anger at 4e, or OD&D, or Savage Worlds, or Fate; I may even get a good laugh out of it. Just don't fool yourself, even for a second, that it substitutes or even equates to an objective and balanced critical look at what makes a game work, or not, for you.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't find it hard at all to remain objective as we look into something we don't like. I find it very easy not to make sweeping statements and ill-advised assumptions about authors or fans of the games I don't enjoy, because they bear no relevance to the game's performance at the table. Which quite frankly is the on ly things that matters.

*reads the Butcher's post*

Yup.

(http://enrill.net/images/forump/Game-promise-50p.jpg)

I can kind of see where Neonchameleon's coming from. A lot of what I wanted out of D&D as a kid ("grand epic quests like LotR!") wasn't the sort of stuff that the rules were the best at delivering. Hell, a lot of the 2ed-era was flailing about trying to get a sort of gameplay that didn't mesh with the rules well at all and 3ed rules produce a list of unintended consequences as long as your arm.

A lot of the history of D&D has been one long effort to pound a square S&S peg into a round High Fantasy hole. With 4ed they finally got around to sanding the peg down until it's nice and round.

Whatever else you can say about 4ed it knows what it wants to accomplish and makes rules that do that.

Quote from: Daztur;730953I can kind of see where Neonchameleon's coming from. A lot of what I wanted out of D&D as a kid ("grand epic quests like LotR!") wasn't the sort of stuff that the rules were the best at delivering. Hell, a lot of the 2ed-era was flailing about trying to get a sort of gameplay that didn't mesh with the rules well at all and 3ed rules produce a list of unintended consequences as long as your arm.

A lot of the history of D&D has been one long effort to pound a square S&S peg into a round High Fantasy hole. With 4ed they finally got around to sanding the peg down until it's nice and round.

Whatever else you can say about 4ed it knows what it wants to accomplish and makes rules that do that.

I guess it's a matter of taste then.  Because the "grand epic quests like LoTR" were more about the story and accomplishments and overcoming challenges and character growth than the actual focused combat piece.  And in older D&D, I was able to better easily progress in those epic campaigns because I wasn't spending 8 hours resolving 4 encounters, or spending 90% of my game play during combat.

Quote from: One Horse Town;7309284e is D&D. 4e is what D&D had been claiming to be for 25 years and then cruelly disappointing the people who tried playing it who wanted to play the game that was promised.

This isn't edition warring. No sir.

But it is edition warring to point out that 4E was designed to please people who were cruelly disappointed with earlier editions. It truly is bizarro world over there.

The 4E system-wanks and mods on TBP gleefully savage D&D Next and threadcrap every single mention of the game. Then they accuse anyone who says anything that could maybe, in an uncharitable light, be interpreted as criticism of 4E of being a fanatical edition warrior. On the bright side, the fierce antipathy of its mods to the current edition of the world's most popular RPG will only accelerate the decline and marginalization of the site.

Quote from: Daztur;730953I can kind of see where Neonchameleon's coming from. A lot of what I wanted out of D&D as a kid ("grand epic quests like LotR!") wasn't the sort of stuff that the rules were the best at delivering. Hell, a lot of the 2ed-era was flailing about trying to get a sort of gameplay that didn't mesh with the rules well at all and 3ed rules produce a list of unintended consequences as long as your arm.

A lot of the history of D&D has been one long effort to pound a square S&S peg into a round High Fantasy hole. With 4ed they finally got around to sanding the peg down until it's nice and round.

Whatever else you can say about 4ed it knows what it wants to accomplish and makes rules that do that.

4E does what it does well. It's a very slick and well-designed game. But it was designed with two core goals:

• Completely rework the mechanics from the ground up in the service of mathematical balance.
• Support a virtual tabletop.

Turns out the one goal was fixing problems that weren't really problems for most players, and the fixes made the game too unfamiliar to many.
And the tactical play designed to support the virtual desktop was more of a niche taste than WotC anticipated.

Doesn't mean it's a bad game. It's a very good game. But it's a niche game. And WotC wants D&D to be a broadly familiar and accessible game.

Quote from: The Butcher;730938Because as it stands, I have a hard time understanding what is it that the game "promised" him 25 years ago, that it took D&D 4e to pull it off.

That's easy, a game that isn't D&D.

Quote from: Benoist;730944*reads the Butcher's post*

Yup.

(http://enrill.net/images/forump/Game-promise-50p.jpg)

But where are the rules and mechanics for imagination?

How can I play dnd without a rule for thinking?

Quote from: Bill;730975But where are the rules and mechanics for imagination?

How can I play dnd without a rule for thinking?

You don't. The minute you start thinking it's no longer D&D, it's MTP.

:D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730956I guess it's a matter of taste then.  Because the "grand epic quests like LoTR" were more about the story and accomplishments and overcoming challenges and character growth than the actual focused combat piece.  And in older D&D, I was able to better easily progress in those epic campaigns because I wasn't spending 8 hours resolving 4 encounters, or spending 90% of my game play during combat.

Sacrosanct almost never says anything I would agree with, but there's something here, something in the core of this statement that I think is quite true.

There are certain people -- let's not call them "4e players", or players of any specific edition, because I have no idea how common they really are in any given edition -- but there are these players who say they want "grand epic quests like LotR", but they don't seem to understand what a grand epic quest like LotR is. They seem to identify "grand epic quest" with grand epic toe-to-toe battles with Big Bads.

Something which, in fact, hardly occurs in LotR or other epic fantasy works at all. You've got maybe two battles between badass personalities: Gandalf vs. the Balrog, and Eowen vs. the Witch-King. Maybe you can toss in Aragorn on Weathertop and Glorfindel at the river near Rivendell. Almost the entire story of LotR is hiding, running, fighting off hordes of enemies long enough to escape, struggling against the elements, or some kind of moral struggle or struggle of personalities. I suppose you could include the major epic *army* battles, but those really don't involve individual badass-vs.-badass toe-to-toe battles, except for the Eowen/Witch-King confrontation already mentioned. Epic battles aren't events where you get to display your superpowers, they're moments of crisis where you fight off the enemy and hope you don't get ganked.

So, either these people have mistakenly reduced all of LotR to a couple of scenes and a handful of pages, or they aren't really thinking of LotR at all. Perhaps they are thinking of comic book superheroes? Perhaps this is where the 4e:anime comparison comes from (this and the ridiculous glowing weapons and ultra-spikey armor?)

Quote from: talysman;730983Sacrosanct almost never says anything I would agree with, but there's something here, something in the core of this statement that I think is quite true.

There are certain people -- let's not call them "4e players", or players of any specific edition, because I have no idea how common they really are in any given edition -- but there are these players who say they want "grand epic quests like LotR", but they don't seem to understand what a grand epic quest like LotR is. They seem to identify "grand epic quest" with grand epic toe-to-toe battles with Big Bads.

Something which, in fact, hardly occurs in LotR or other epic fantasy works at all. You've got maybe two battles between badass personalities: Gandalf vs. the Balrog, and Eowen vs. the Witch-King. Maybe you can toss in Aragorn on Weathertop and Glorfindel at the river near Rivendell. Almost the entire story of LotR is hiding, running, fighting off hordes of enemies long enough to escape, struggling against the elements, or some kind of moral struggle or struggle of personalities. I suppose you could include the major epic *army* battles, but those really don't involve individual badass-vs.-badass toe-to-toe battles, except for the Eowen/Witch-King confrontation already mentioned. Epic battles aren't events where you get to display your superpowers, they're moments of crisis where you fight off the enemy and hope you don't get ganked.

So, either these people have mistakenly reduced all of LotR to a couple of scenes and a handful of pages, or they aren't really thinking of LotR at all. Perhaps they are thinking of comic book superheroes? Perhaps this is where the 4e:anime comparison comes from (this and the ridiculous glowing weapons and ultra-spikey armor?)

I tend to agree. The more crunchy game systems (in play crunch, not frontloaded crunch) push people toward attention to mechanics. I prefer to have a rules lite system that fades into the background.

I'd rather hear a warrior say "I try to take off the ogres head with my Axe!" than "I use power attack and now my damage bonus is +9, better vs the ogres DR, and I hope my secondary attacks at -5/-10 still hit...blaa blaa blaaa"

Quote from: Daztur;730953I can kind of see where Neonchameleon's coming from. A lot of what I wanted out of D&D as a kid ("grand epic quests like LotR!") wasn't the sort of stuff that the rules were the best at delivering. Hell, a lot of the 2ed-era was flailing about trying to get a sort of gameplay that didn't mesh with the rules well at all and 3ed rules produce a list of unintended consequences as long as your arm.

The problem is not with OD&D, the problem is too many people read ONLY LotR and thought that was "fantasy."  I like LotR just fine, but I'd rather tread the jeweled thrones of earth beneath my sandaled feet than throw Sorhead's Ring of Doom into the Zazu Pitts of Fordor.

Quote from: talysman;730983So, either these people have mistakenly reduced all of LotR to a couple of scenes and a handful of pages, or they aren't really thinking of LotR at all. Perhaps they are thinking of comic book superheroes? Perhaps this is where the 4e:anime comparison comes from (this and the ridiculous glowing weapons and ultra-spikey armor?)

Selective memory.  It's part and parcel with "Nobody died in Lord of the Rings, I don't want my character to die."  Forgetting the fairly high body count among named characters, and also forgetting that Thorin's company in "Hobbit" took 20% casualties.

Quote from: talysman;730983Epic battles aren't events where you get to display your superpowers, they're moments of crisis where you fight off the enemy and hope you don't get ganked.

I've heard of a distinction between "heroic" and "superheroic".  Heroic is when people succeed against terrible odds because of their will and determination.  Superheroic is when they succeed against terrible odds because they're just that awesome.

Old school D&D definitely tends towards the heroic.  But I think many people wanted it to be superheroic.

The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

Anyway, when it comes to edition-warring I think the urge--in sane people--comes either from feeling like the edition you don't like is crowding out the one you do, or from the publishers themselves initiating the warring, as Windjammer pointed out upthread. Then it turns into a tit-for-tat.

Quote from: talysman;730983So, either these people have mistakenly reduced all of LotR to a couple of scenes and a handful of pages, or they aren't really thinking of LotR at all. Perhaps they are thinking of comic book superheroes? Perhaps this is where the 4e:anime comparison comes from (this and the ridiculous glowing weapons and ultra-spikey armor?)

 When 4E first came out, I took a look at it and realized that it was a supers genre game with fantasy trade dress.

Even hinting that 4E MIGHT be a supers game was grounds for an infraction even if you had nothing bad to say about it.  

This from a few years ago that I posted on ENW in a thread titled: What Superhero RPG do you play?

4E D&D.

The campaign has only just started but its off to a good start.

Details:
Larger than life protagonists all with an array of superpowers-check

A determined focus to fight for what is right and good-check

Epic showdowns with dastardly villains-check

A powerful patron (The Fey Court) from which we receive info and are assigned missions-check

What else is missing that is needed to make this a "legitimate" supers campaign? Is Star Wars not a martial arts movie because it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

I do NOT consider our campaign to be "crap". I'm rather pleased with it thus far.

Mod Note: This reads a whole lot like edition-warring threadcrapping. If your groups is actually using 4e for supers gaming, rather than fantasy, please go into more detail to avoid that perception. ~Umbran

Quote from: Sacrosanct;730662That was actually the intent.  Not to mirror "real" martial arts, but to emulate kung fu movies.

Now before someone says Gary was all for the disassociated wonder powers that ended up being 4e, I think it's fair to say that with martial arts in OA, it was very much a "time and a place for that stuff" with Gary.  I don't know for sure, obviously, but I have a good feeling that all the gonzo flying squirrel stuff in OA was meant to stay in Kara Tur and not replace the "core" D&D, if that makes sense.  I.e., I'm sure he didn't intend everyone to replace their current PHB monks with OA versions (the Dragon magazine monk was better anyway, but I digress), or to have parties full of kensai and shape shifting whatever the heck that race was.

Correct.

The pseudo-animal people were Hengyokai. There were also the spirit/elemental people.

Quote from: Arminius;731038The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

Anyway, when it comes to edition-warring I think the urge--in sane people--comes either from feeling like the edition you don't like is crowding out the one you do, or from the publishers themselves initiating the warring, as Windjammer pointed out upthread. Then it turns into a tit-for-tat.

Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

For example I've talked with people who really want epic throw down fair fights and talk about how lame/cheesy/cheap it is for players to do things like carry a ballista into a dungeon in a bag of holding and then assemble it and backstab the dragon with it and how nothing like that ever happens in the fantasy books they read. All I could think of what the scene in which the Black Company ambushes Limper with a ballista and what a fun fight scene that was.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;731040When 4E first came out, I took a look at it and realized that it was a supers genre game with fantasy trade dress.

Even hinting that 4E MIGHT be a supers game was grounds for an infraction even if you had nothing bad to say about it.  

This from a few years ago that I posted on ENW in a thread titled: What Superhero RPG do you play?

4E D&D.

The campaign has only just started but its off to a good start.

Details:
Larger than life protagonists all with an array of superpowers-check

A determined focus to fight for what is right and good-check

Epic showdowns with dastardly villains-check

A powerful patron (The Fey Court) from which we receive info and are assigned missions-check

What else is missing that is needed to make this a "legitimate" supers campaign? Is Star Wars not a martial arts movie because it takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

I do NOT consider our campaign to be "crap". I'm rather pleased with it thus far.

Mod Note: This reads a whole lot like edition-warring threadcrapping. If your groups is actually using 4e for supers gaming, rather than fantasy, please go into more detail to avoid that perception. ~Umbran

You're telling me that ENW and TBP are shitholes?  Shawck.  

That being said, yes, I had the same reaction to 4e as you: it's a supers game dolled up in fantasy clothing.

Quote from: Arminius;731038The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

The thing is, as Sacrosanct pointed out, that there's nothing about 4e that I can discern, that does a better job of offering players a chance to feel like the heroes of a high fantasy saga like LotR or (God help me for juxtaposing these two) Dragonlance.

Unless, as Old Geezer cogently suggests, there's a considerable contingent of people who see "high fantasy" as a string of "epic" set-piece fights between larger-than-life characters, tied together by thin strands of plot. Speaking strictly for myself, I don't see the genre this way.

And for the sake of clarification, I don't think this is an indictment of 4e. I think 4e does a solid job of what it sets out to be; a RPG that's very combat-centric and strongly supports miniatures and/or grid play.

Nevertheless, if I wanted a game that fulfilled the agenda first laid out by the "Hickman Revolution", my money would be on Dungeon World. I may yet try it.

Quote from: Arminius;731038The "25 years" comment (if you read further in thread) basically lays the blame/credit on Dragonlance (1984)  and Mentzer Red Box (1983). I think everybody knows that DL was the major point of departure by now; Red Box is blamed because of the Larry Elmore cover, which, fair enough, compared to the earlier ones, it's a completely soulless depiction of a "hero"; you can have it.

This one?

(http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Starter-Set.jpg)

Quote from: The Butcher;731064Nevertheless, if I wanted a game that fulfilled the agenda first laid out by the "Hickman Revolution", my money would be on Dungeon World. I may yet try it.

I dunno, from what I've heard, it might be a MWP/Cortex Plus game, appropriately enough.

Quote from: Omega;731066This one?

Yeah, I don't care for the LE stuff.

Quote from: Daztur;731058Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

Agreed.

Quote from: Daztur;731058As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

While 4E brings the superpowered PCs, there's nothing about the game that makes it more of a good vs evil save-the-world game than any other edition of D&D. It doesn't support kingdom building or social contests, and there's nothing in it about epic destinies. PCs will become very powerful - in combat at least; out of combat they'll be less powerful than an AD&D or 3.X party with high-level spellcasters. But 4E doesn't support epic storylines any better than other editions. In fact, it may be worse than other editions with such a focus on tactical combat and the time-sink that goes into every encounter.

As far as what I think makes 4ed better at some kinds of games:
-The combat rules make it better suited for long drawn out combat that can get pretty repetitive in previous editions, however it is horrifically ill-suited to frequent combat as that gets boring. The rpg.net consensus is to only have one or two combats in a session for 4ed, which seems reasonable.
-Old editions have more open ended effects while 4ed ones are more nailed down, which makes the older editions reward rat bastard cunning a lot more than 4ed which I vastly prefer but which fits the tone of some game more than others.
-Combat is a lot more predictable ("less swingy") with it hard for players to get taken down by some random goblins that get really lucky. For me this is bad but it means that you only get player deaths in the big climactic hard fights unless the players really screw up.

Could go on but bored now.

I think that the old editions encourage underhandedness a lot more because of things like GP = XP, more open ended effects and more unpredictable combat. Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War basically, older editions encourage Black Company-style behavior while 4ed encourages set piece battles.

Quote from: Daztur;731058But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

Kanye the Giant, yo. (http://vimeo.com/39114507)

Quote from: Daztur;731058Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

For example I've talked with people who really want epic throw down fair fights and talk about how lame/cheesy/cheap it is for players to do things like carry a ballista into a dungeon in a bag of holding and then assemble it and backstab the dragon with it and how nothing like that ever happens in the fantasy books they read. All I could think of what the scene in which the Black Company ambushes Limper with a ballista and what a fun fight scene that was.

LOL, How funny!  My players bitched just like that strip when I tried to run the DL modules back in the late 1980s.

The problem with the DL modules was not that they tried to emulate the fiction but rather that they provided the characters from the fiction as the characters to be used in the playing of the modules.   While, yes, they did state in the modules that players could create their own unique characters to run through the modules, it was presented and written with the assumption that the players would be taking on the role of one of the characters from the fiction.

I think that the whole DL phenomenon would have played out differently if the DL modules were written to emulate the story plot points of the fiction in a generic sense so that the players' characters could replace the characters from the DL fiction to create their own fiction.

Quote from: Daztur;731058Yup a lot of people wanted what the DL adventures were offering, otherwise they wouldn't have sold so well. It's just the thing is that D&D is a pretty crappy system for trying to get at what the DL adventures are trying to do, but people have been trying to do that for decades and decades anyway.

That's why the DM of the Rings looks like such a shitty adventure: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612 the DM is trying to force the players and the rules to do stuff that they don't want to do. But part of the reason the strip is funny is that we've all had DMs like that, the "come on guys, you're supposed to be the heroes!" ones who get pissy when the players act like Conan or Cugel or Croaker.

As far as I can tell 4ed gives those kind of people what they want better than the old editions of D&D. Personally I find it's just a hell of a lot more fun to stop trying to force D&D into being something else and just roll let the players lace up their jeweled throne stomping boots.

For example I've talked with people who really want epic throw down fair fights and talk about how lame/cheesy/cheap it is for players to do things like carry a ballista into a dungeon in a bag of holding and then assemble it and backstab the dragon with it and how nothing like that ever happens in the fantasy books they read. All I could think of what the scene in which the Black Company ambushes Limper with a ballista and what a fun fight scene that was.

I guess I'll thank my lucky star that I started my adventure with fantasy with not only Tolkien but also Conan and Black Company.

Quote from: Drohem;731154LOL, How funny!  My players bitched just like that strip when I tried to run the DL modules back in the late 1980s.

The problem with the DL modules was not that they tried to emulate the fiction but rather that they provided the characters from the fiction as the characters to be used in the playing of the modules.   While, yes, they did state in the modules that players could create their own unique characters to run through the modules, it was presented and written with the assumption that the players would be taking on the role of one of the characters from the fiction.

I think that the whole DL phenomenon would have played out differently if the DL modules were written to emulate the story plot points of the fiction in a generic sense so that the players' characters could replace the characters from the DL fiction to create their own fiction.

The main "problem" is that if you want to create a truly epic storyline, while players are also entirely free to choose, it's almost (if not in fact) impossible to write it as a prepared campaign/module, because for every choice the players make, for every change, every option also changes, and not in a linear, but at the very least, square fashion. Then again, I've seen it done - it'd just require an epic amount of work on the scenario part. Some parts'd still be more linear than others, and the campaign would rely heavily on the GM to improvise and adjunct the events.

Quote from: Omega;731066(http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Starter-Set.jpg)

If that's supposed to be a soulless picture, I'm giving Satan a call right now.

I loved Larry Elmore stuff back in the day.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;731157I loved Larry Elmore stuff back in the day.

Me too, the Norwegian translations of the B and E books of BECMI were my D&D gateway way back when and the art definitely helped. :)

Quote from: The Butcher;731064Unless, as Old Geezer cogently suggests, there's a considerable contingent of people who see "high fantasy" as a string of "epic" set-piece fights between larger-than-life characters, tied together by thin strands of plot. Speaking strictly for myself, I don't see the genre this way.

There is, sadly,  there really is. Even I admittedly use epic to mean something more along the lines of Exalted than Odyssey when it comes to RPGs.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;731157I loved Larry Elmore stuff back in the day.

(And others.)

Sorry, we've had this conversation before, and I don't want to derail by arguing. I'll just say that

A) Yes, it gives a pretty poor impression of what level 1-3 D&D is like. There's no party, you're fighting a pretty big red dragon, you're not shitting your pants. Compare the Holmes or Moldvay boxes which are a little more reasonable.

B) I'm not just making up my reaction to to the LE and DL art over false nostalgia. I was in my teens by the time that stuff came out and it struck me as very plastic-heroic and cartoony. Granted, I also thought that Otus was creepy and "not realistic." In hindsight I still feel the same way about LE but I think I was a philistine WRT Otus. (I also had trouble with Edward Gorey and Gahan Wilson.) I'd guess that Trampier's "realistic" stuff was closest to Arminius-approved RPG-fantasy bitd; I liked the look of Wormy but I didn't make a connection to the PHB cover or Emirikol.

[EDIT: what I mean is that Wormy is "cute" and stylish, but Trampier's other work is what I thought an adventure should look like.]

IME the "string of set piece battles" = epic storytelling is yet another symptom of the increasing focus on off-table activities in RPGfandom.

Some people really love particular "systems" because they can spend hours 'building' characters away from the table. The way the system plays at the table is almost of lesser importance.

Some people like to write huge backgrounds for their characters and call their characters "deep", "nuanced" and "interesting" even if they don't do anything remotely noteworthy at the table. The decisions made at the table are of lesser importance.

Likewise some folks like to write/think/talk about their "epic story" away from the table even if the game at the table is just a series of set piece combats. The activity at the table isn't important.

Quote from: Piestrio;731221Some people like to write huge backgrounds for their characters and call their characters "deep", "nuanced" and "interesting" even if they don't do anything remotely noteworthy at the table. The decisions made at the table are of lesser importance.

Preach it, brother.

I think it's more the fight-of-the-week rhythm from TV shows, especially cartoons. Each episode is dramatic buildup, then set-piece battle, then invocation of special powers (Voltron's sword, Sailor Moon's staff, etc.). A story line can be built around this but the overall structure is pretty robust against missing an episode or two, because every week you get the same mix of elements.

Quote from: Arminius;731232I think it's more the fight-of-the-week rhythm from TV shows, especially cartoons. Each episode is dramatic buildup, then set-piece battle, then invocation of special powers (Voltron's sword, Sailor Moon's staff, etc.). A story line can be built around this but the overall structure is pretty robust against missing an episode or two, because every week you get the same mix of elements.

It works great if you're playing 4-color Silver Age Comics Code-approved supers.

Funny thing is that I think they did some sophisticated stuff under the CC. I didn't read a whole lot of comics but I remember issues from about 1970 of Batman, Hulk, Spider-Man, Werewolf By Night, Son of Satan, and Superman (not sure those were the exact titles, sometimes a character was in multiple titles) that seemed to be episodes of fairly complex extended narratives. Usually they did have a regular dose of a good fight but it didn't necessarily dominate the issue.

I like how people here are talking about liking a different game as though it is some kind of moral/intellectual indictment.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731241I like how people here are talking about liking a different game as though it is some kind of moral/intellectual indictment.

For example?

Quote from: Piestrio;731251For example?

That would require "context."

"They misunderstand real fantasy epics"

"The activity at the table isn't important [to them]"

I swear its like no one could possibly like the way a game plays at the table without being wrong about something.

The thing is, Edition Warring is stupid, and trying to speculate what "flaws" cause people to want to play a game you may not like is insulting. I don't even play 4e. I've played it before, and its... its alright. I like it better than 3.x, but me not liking 3.x doesn't cause me to speculate about why people don't see all the things wrong I see with it. It doesn't matter. They have their fun, I have my fun, and there is no reason for me to spend time insulting them or their opinions.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265"They misunderstand real fantasy epics"

"The activity at the table isn't important [to them]"

I swear its like no one could possibly like the way a game plays at the table without being wrong about something.

Quick question...

How do you hammer in the last nail?

Well, I can't speak to "understanding fantasy epics."

But I've gamed with people for whom what happens at the table isn't important; they spend most of their "game" time apart individually doing what's sometimes called "blue-booking," and when they actually get together it's more like a meeting on the JLA satellite headquarters than an adventure; they spend most of their time telling each other what they've been doing and trading quips.

It's not to my taste, but they're having fun, and it is a thing that really exists and is apparently quite common in some circles.

Of course, some people eat green peppers, and I'd have to go without food for several days before I'd even try to choke one of the damn things down.

There's negativity here, true, but analyzing the reception of culture is a completely legitimate pursuit. You can certainly argue with a particular analysis but, Emperor Norton, I think you're calling for know-nothingism.

Quote from: Haffrung;731142While 4E brings the superpowered PCs, there's nothing about the game that makes it more of a good vs evil save-the-world game than any other edition of D&D. It doesn't support kingdom building or social contests, and there's nothing in it about epic destinies.

Nothing in it about epic destinies? Have you read 4E at all?  Just curious.

Lets start with the PHB (page 29):

In the epic tier,your character's capabilities are truly superheroic. Your class still determines most of your abilities,but your most dramatic powers come from your choice of epic destiny,which you select at 21st level.

It seems like epic destinies are an actual thing that you choose for your character at 21st level.

Right from level 1 4E assumes the PCs are heroes and refers to them as such.

An AD&D adventurer might be a hero from time to time, but the game makes no such assumptions.

Quote from: Arminius;731269There's negativity here, true, but analyzing the reception of culture is a completely legitimate pursuit. You can certainly argue with a particular analysis but, Emperor Norton, I think you're calling for know-nothingism.

Except most of the "analysis" in this thread is just insults. People aren't looking for a reason that people enjoy 4e, they are looking for a reason to look down on people who enjoy 4e.

I mean, I'm not a fan of ten foot pole exploration or armies of hirelings, but you will never catch me insinuating that the people who do are somehow flawed for liking it. Its a game.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731277Except most of the "analysis" in this thread is just insults. People aren't looking for a reason that people enjoy 4e, they are looking for a reason to look down on people who enjoy 4e.

I mean, I'm not a fan of ten foot pole exploration or armies of hirelings, but you will never catch me insinuating that the people who do are somehow flawed for liking it. Its a game.

When did I say anything about 4e?

When did I say anyone was wrong for liking anything?

I just said some people like to do lots of shit away from the table and enjoy it like that.

You're too fuckin touchy mate. Not everything is an attack on your elfgame.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265"They misunderstand real fantasy epics"

"The activity at the table isn't important [to them]"

I swear its like no one could possibly like the way a game plays at the table without being wrong about something.

The thing is, Edition Warring is stupid, and trying to speculate what "flaws" cause people to want to play a game you may not like is insulting.

What you may have missed was that we weren't talking about a game, but about a group of people.

EXAMPLE: the "fantasy epics" quote was in reference to people who say what they want is epic quests, but they only play a game based on how "epic" the battles feel or how many powers their character has, and how soon. It's not about the game at all, but about a disconnect between what these people claim to like and what they actually look for in a game. Epic quest fantasy like LotR doesn't have loads of powers, and few "epic" battles.

 There's plenty of people who play 4e who don't say anything like that... So no reason to defend 4e's good name, is there?

As said. I dont edition warrior.

I bitch about the absolute jarring disparities between edition settings.
But more importantly, broken mechanics.

Back to the Gamma World example.
3rd and 4th ed I rarely pick on other than 4th eds dim-witted attempts to turn the naming convention of monsters into its own language and started slapping it on everything. bleah. Otherwise eh. Its playable.
Alternity GW gets flack because it totally neutered the settings freedom of race choice. Otherwise eh. Its playable.
d20 GW is where I direct alot of my ire. Baughs slacker attitude towards designing the game irks me to no end. Near totally gutting the setting and switching to what amounts to a freeform magic system. (Which by the way is REALLY neet! But what the hell is is doing here?) was a WTF moment. Atrocious art direction. Not exceeded till the next version. And rules that arent just maybee broken. They are 200% blazingly broken or incomplete because "Oh the players will make those rules for us." argh!
D&D GW has about zero to do with the original. It does though streamline 4e rules and thus far is my only exposure to 4e. Ignoring the absolute goofball setting they presented. Hilarity Ensues. The main irk is the attitude of the designers and the near 100% random chargen (Which happens to be broken reguarding humans.) You choose a name and a weapon and an armour. Otherwise you have no control and the designers insult the players who might want something like free will there. Hilarity Ensues. Way to go jackasses. Oh and every rest your character may change radically. Hilarity Ensues. Then theres the art direction. Or absolute lack thereof. The monster section has zero in common with the setting theme. Oh yeah... and they tacked a CCG onto it. oh yay. Otherwise eh, its playable.

On the other hand everything I've seen or heard of 5th Age Dragonlance has convinced me it does indeed suck as a setting. Mechanics wise, no clue.

I've heard of some ire towards the whole Ao and de-powered gods event in Forgotten Realms back in the 90s. But so far not seen it other than in the D&D:FR comic.

Which brings up an odd observation. Over time it seems that weve moved from arguing over the setting, to arguing over the edition as a whole.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;731272Nothing in it about epic destinies? Have you read 4E at all?  Just curious.

Lets start with the PHB (page 29):

In the epic tier,your character's capabilities are truly superheroic. Your class still determines most of your abilities,but your most dramatic powers come from your choice of epic destiny,which you select at 21st level.

It seems like epic destinies are an actual thing that you choose for your character at 21st level.

Right from level 1 4E assumes the PCs are heroes and refers to them as such.

An AD&D adventurer might be a hero from time to time, but the game makes no such assumptions.

That doesn't make 4e any different than AD&D, with PCs being heroes at level 4 and superheroes at level 8.  At least it appears 4e makes you wait until level 21 before you become epic.  And BECMI, where PCs not only became epic, they became gods.  Immortals.  And I'm sure a whole lot of game play is done in 4e before PCs become level 21.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that no edition seems to push towards a superhero RPG than any other, and it all really comes down to how you play.

As I mentioned earlier, in my mind, what makes an epic character isn't necessarily the combat, but the actions throughout that character's campaigns which is usually done via roleplaying and the experiences.  And 4e, IMO, actually makes that harder to be epic because you spend a lot more time on a lot fewer encounters, and less time exploring and crafting your PC's story.  If someone views a PC as epic and legendary based mostly or solely on powers on a character sheet?  They probably disagree with my opinion.

YMMV of course.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265"They misunderstand real fantasy epics"

"The activity at the table isn't important [to them]"

First, I see that you fail to quote any actual posts from this thread.

Second, the only value judgement in the two statements above is your own. No one, to the best of my recollection, has claimed that these things make anyone a worse person. I think they're all true and chalk them up 100% to personal taste.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;731265I swear its like no one could possibly like the way a game plays at the table without being wrong about something.

The thing is, Edition Warring is stupid, and trying to speculate what "flaws" cause people to want to play a game you may not like is insulting. I don't even play 4e. I've played it before, and its... its alright. I like it better than 3.x, but me not liking 3.x doesn't cause me to speculate about why people don't see all the things wrong I see with it. It doesn't matter. They have their fun, I have my fun, and there is no reason for me to spend time insulting them or their opinions.

I have no qualms about calling out edition warriors, and in fact I've made a big ranty anti-edition-warring post a few pages back in this very thread. But this just isn't the case here.

Quote from: Omega;731296On the other hand everything I've seen or heard of 5th Age Dragonlance has convinced me it does indeed suck as a setting. Mechanics wise, no clue.

  Actually, IMO, it's a very good setting ... if you can get past the fact that they had to rebuild after W&H tried to shake up or kill DL in Dragons of Summer Flame, and can forgive them for committing the common 90s sins of being too ambitious and holding back information for later supplements that, unfortunately, never got released. Ironically, it's probably the most 'sandbox-friendly' DL ever was. :)

  But I'm biased--I like the system and setting, and it revived my interest in DL after it had laid fallow for years.