College professor here and I've switched all my undergrad classes to be out of 500 or 1000 points because students were utterly baffled by the concept of weighted percentage grades.  As in certain assignments are worth 20% of the total, others 10%, etc.  But yet, even having done this, many students are baffled and cannot calculate what grade they might need on a final (out of 100) to achieve a certain grade in the class, which is on a straight point system.  The math failure is real.  But their reading and writing skills are just as bad so I've pretty much lost all hope for the future of this country. 

As for the actual topic, another weird thing I've noticed with games like L5R and TOR is that they create a raft of "roleplaying" mechanics that are actually just tied to dice rolls, sometimes with specialty dice to boot.  Then they have these convoluted mechanisms for determining the success (often in degrees) of said actions.  Why not just roleplay that shit?  I think creative thinking is increasingly replaced by mechanics that give the illusion of choice and add false and unneeded layers of complexity to games.

1E had a few worthless classes, then Unearthed Arcana added more worthless classes and some unnecessary races. I think 5E added even more new classes and race options to appeal to the power gamer instinct and now from what I've read elsewhere it is this exact issue that makes it hard for DMs in 5E to keep up.

On the other hand difficult math/mechanics can be handled by your smart phone and the right dice rolling app.

The question I have is this:

Is there a real reason for some systems to be so complicated? Or were they putting it together and it became complicated?  Or were the designers making it complicated to be more realistic?  Or were the designers doing it to look cool?

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 17, 2023, 11:31:58 AM
The question I have is this:

Is there a real reason for some systems to be so complicated? Or were they putting it together and it became complicated?  Or were the designers making it complicated to be more realistic?  Or were the designers doing it to look cool?

People have different tastes. Some people really, legitimately, enjoy deep rules with complexity.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 17, 2023, 12:07:04 PM
People have different tastes. Some people really, legitimately, enjoy deep rules with complexity.

That makes sense.  I guess there are gamers out there who have more time to deal with the complicated systems then people like me who have limited gaming time.

Quote from: cavalier973 on April 14, 2023, 07:47:14 AM
Also, people who complain about THAC0 because subtraction is *hard*.

Subtraction is hard, when the alternative is addition.  That's how human brains work, as far as we know!

THAC0 is absolutely indefensible. 
Calculate a number needed to roll
Ascending AC to calculate a hit number:  AC 30 - Attack 22 = 8.
Target 20 to calculate a hit number: 20 - ( Attack 22 + AC -10) = 8.
THAC0 for that same calculation: THAC0 -2 - AC -10 = 8.
THAC0 sucks here, always a subtraction, sometimes three minuses, and AC as the second term in subtraction is awful.
Target 20 is still better than THAC0, because there's two steps, and one of them is addition.  Even with the -10 AC, it's still easy because the second term is the only one that can go negative, and you are always subtracting from 20.
Ascending AC is the clear winner.  Target20 is ok.  THAC0 is dogshit.

Just make a roll and see if it hit
Ascending AC to see if the roll hit:  Roll 9 + Attack 22 = 31, 31 > 30, attack hits.
THAC0 to see if the roll hit:  THAC0 -2 - Roll 9 = -11, -11 < -10, attack hits
Target20 to see if the roll hit: Roll 9 + Attack 22 + AC -10 = 21, 21 > 20, attack hits.
Target20 adds that second addition step, but makes up some of that cognitively by having the comparison always be versus 20 at the end.  Ascending AC is also very good here, just being one simple addition and one medium comparison.  THAC0 is again, absolutely the worst.


There's no place in this world for an attack bonus that starts at 21 or 20 and slowly crawls down.  It's just terrible.  Attack bonuses, or effective fighter level, work fine.  No THAC0.  Then you can do ascending AC like in 3.X, 4ed, 5e, or (kinda) ACKS, or you can use descending AC with Target20.

No one has ever made a plausible case to defend THAC0 against Target20, and the only defense against ascending AC is preferring descending AC- which should leave you with Target20, not THAC0.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 17, 2023, 12:07:04 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 17, 2023, 11:31:58 AM
The question I have is this:

Is there a real reason for some systems to be so complicated? Or were they putting it together and it became complicated?  Or were the designers making it complicated to be more realistic?  Or were the designers doing it to look cool?

People have different tastes. Some people really, legitimately, enjoy deep rules with complexity.

As someone who enjoys both simple and complex rulesets, the main thing I look at is necessity. What does the game require and have attempts been made to implement the necessary rules elegantly.

If you oversimply your game and then tell me "just make shit up," don't waste my time. I know how to play minimal games, and I don't need to buy yours to make stuff up. The Paranoia box set was like this.

If you make your rules needlessly complicated, don't waste my time. Don't keep adding rules to cover off different situations. Mothership and The Troubleshooters managed to do this, and they are not even complicated systems. They both started with a simple iteration of d100 and kept adding twists and special cases until it was just a mess.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 17, 2023, 12:46:07 PM
As someone who enjoys both simple and complex rulesets, the main thing I look at is necessity. What does the game require and have attempts been made to implement the necessary rules elegantly.

If you oversimply your game and then tell me "just make shit up," don't waste my time. I know how to play minimal games, and I don't need to buy yours to make stuff up. The Paranoia box set was like this.

If you make your rules needlessly complicated, don't waste my time. Don't keep adding rules to cover off different situations. Mothership and The Troubleshooters managed to do this, and they are not even complicated systems. They both started with a simple iteration of d100 and kept adding twists and special cases until it was just a mess.

I am not a just make shit up kind of person which is why I hate games like FATE, fudge and Risus.

I like rules that cover as much as they can and leave room for the GM to make the determination.

Well, one problem with the THACO argument is that on most old school character sheets you're not even doing a calculation.  You literally write the value needed to hit an AC.  So there's actually no math involved in the actual game.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 17, 2023, 01:32:08 PM
Well, one problem with the THACO argument is that on most old school character sheets you're not even doing a calculation.  You literally write the value needed to hit an AC.  So there's actually no math involved in the actual game.

I agree. THAC0 is the easiest!

Quote from: Venka on April 17, 2023, 12:31:26 PM

Quote from: cavalier973 on April 14, 2023, 07:47:14 AM
Also, people who complain about THAC0 because subtraction is *hard*.

Subtraction is hard, when the alternative is addition.  That's how human brains work, as far as we know!

THAC0 is absolutely indefensible. 
Calculate a number needed to roll
Ascending AC to calculate a hit number:  AC 30 - Attack 22 = 8.
Target 20 to calculate a hit number: 20 - ( Attack 22 + AC -10) = 8.
THAC0 for that same calculation: THAC0 -2 - AC -10 = 8.
THAC0 sucks here, always a subtraction, sometimes three minuses, and AC as the second term in subtraction is awful.
Target 20 is still better than THAC0, because there's two steps, and one of them is addition.  Even with the -10 AC, it's still easy because the second term is the only one that can go negative, and you are always subtracting from 20.
Ascending AC is the clear winner.  Target20 is ok.  THAC0 is dogshit.

Just make a roll and see if it hit
Ascending AC to see if the roll hit:  Roll 9 + Attack 22 = 31, 31 > 30, attack hits.
THAC0 to see if the roll hit:  THAC0 -2 - Roll 9 = -11, -11 < -10, attack hits
Target20 to see if the roll hit: Roll 9 + Attack 22 + AC -10 = 21, 21 > 20, attack hits.
Target20 adds that second addition step, but makes up some of that cognitively by having the comparison always be versus 20 at the end.  Ascending AC is also very good here, just being one simple addition and one medium comparison.  THAC0 is again, absolutely the worst.


There's no place in this world for an attack bonus that starts at 21 or 20 and slowly crawls down.  It's just terrible.  Attack bonuses, or effective fighter level, work fine.  No THAC0.  Then you can do ascending AC like in 3.X, 4ed, 5e, or (kinda) ACKS, or you can use descending AC with Target20.

No one has ever made a plausible case to defend THAC0 against Target20, and the only defense against ascending AC is preferring descending AC- which should leave you with Target20, not THAC0.

Seems like you gave an example here for very high level? That is going to have a bias.

One of the main benefits of THAC0 is that it has an intuitive "bounded" design. AC 10 is unarmoured, with AC 0 being basically as perfect an AC as possible without magic (best armor + shield + dex bonus). 5 AC is the most common armour Chainmail -- right in the middle.

Negative AC's then are strange mythical creatures, and adventures kited out with impressive magical armours.

The best AC in Fiend Folio is -8 Will-o-the-wisp. The best AC in the 1e AD&D MM is Demogorgon -8. Nothing has the AC -10 / 30 in your example in 1e AD&D.


Let's do a simple example for a low-level encounter. Because this is where gameplay starts:

Some men-at-arms in chainmail attack you. There ac is 5 / 15. Your THAC0 is 18 / attack bonus is +2

Calculate a number needed to roll
THAC0 -- 18 - 5 = 13
Ascending AC -- 15 - 2 = 13

A roll of 13 or above hits.

Just make a roll and see if it hit
Let's say you roll a 10.

THAC0 -- 18 - 10 = I hit AC 8. Miss
Ascending AC -- 10 + 2 = I hit AC 12. Miss


To me, the main benefit of THAC0 is that it encourages Calculate a number needed to roll so you do the math once. I also find it far easier to adjudicate as GM where the players are doing zero math. Just telling me what they rolled. 
My brain will skip the math here if I know it's impossible, whereas it feels compelled to always add the + for attack in an ascending AC system.

Quote from: Venka on April 17, 2023, 12:31:26 PM

Quote from: cavalier973 on April 14, 2023, 07:47:14 AM
Also, people who complain about THAC0 because subtraction is *hard*.

Subtraction is hard, when the alternative is addition.  That's how human brains work, as far as we know!

THAC0 is absolutely indefensible. 

So...THAC0 has an armor class of 10, then?

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 17, 2023, 12:07:04 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 17, 2023, 11:31:58 AM
The question I have is this:

Is there a real reason for some systems to be so complicated? Or were they putting it together and it became complicated?  Or were the designers making it complicated to be more realistic?  Or were the designers doing it to look cool?

People have different tastes. Some people really, legitimately, enjoy deep rules with complexity.

I'll agree with ninja here. Well, both of you, with a caveat.

There is taste, of course, but there is also complexity for no purpose.

AD&D might have a reason for each polearm, but 5e definitely does NOT have a reason to have two identical ones.

B/X Halflings can hide in the woods with 90% chance of success. In dungeons, they can hide in cover or shadows with 2-in-6 chances. Thieves, OTOH, have 10% to 99% chance of hiding in shadows. So, for a similar activity, we have two different systems (1d6 and 1d100 - for the same class!) and two different "progressions" (static for the Halfling, progressive for the thief).

Holmes have different weapon speed that make no sense - daggers beat zweihanders in every possible way. Also, the "slow" tags serve no function in OSE, since two-handers are already not that great.

I don't have enough experience with the AD&D bard, but I'd bet its complexity serves no real purpose either.

So, as ninja says, the key is "Is there a real reason for some systems to be so complicated?"

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/03/adding-skills-makes-osr-games-simpler.html

Yeah, THAC0 also works really well when you have one d20 die in the whole group, which the GM rolls.  Of course, the chart on the character sheet works even better for that, and wasn't a bad choice even when the group only had 2 or 3 d20s which got passed around.

It wasn't a bad choice for backwards compatibility from the simpler system, either.  It would have been a bad choice to keep it when doing a complete rewrite.  Things can be not a good fit for the current design and still have solid reasons for existence in their time. 

Quote from: Venka on April 17, 2023, 12:31:26 PM

Quote from: cavalier973 on April 14, 2023, 07:47:14 AM
Also, people who complain about THAC0 because subtraction is *hard*.

Subtraction is hard, when the alternative is addition.  That's how human brains work, as far as we know!

THAC0 is absolutely indefensible. 

THAC0 is trivial.  Back in the day I didn't even have to think about it.  I looked at the numbers and knew the answer.