Quote from: SpinachcatHow nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s...

As for mere and literal ascending ACs, Gary Gygax's Chainmail rules set had those before Dungeons & Dragons was even nascent.

The fundamental thing is that the arithmetic value of an AC simply does not matter in old D&D because we normally aren't using them for arithmetic.

They are just columns or rows on tables that have done the calculations already.

If what I found in my collection of books and magazines were letter codes, then they would be normally just as useful. Instead, I find the familiar 9 to 2 sequence.

Even before D&D was called D&D, it had a user base for whom the codes worked just fine. Conformity with Chainmail was not a big deal. The established library of monsters, and the growing volume of user-created material, was of far greater value.

-----

The fetish of doing maths with each roll is part of the "2e/ 3e style" aspect of C&C.

The "Siege Engine" may deliver that better if you give players bonuses to write down and add to their rolls, instead of having the CK figure them into the target numbers.

-----

(Hey, I went through a phase of "formulas for everything" in the late '70s. I can dig the impulse. It's just that there's a reason it was a phase that passed with experience. My own "d20 system" rarely called for addition, and never used subtraction.)

I think all that needs to be said about the SIEGE engine has already been said; I felt it was a good idea, but very poorly implemented.  And really, C&C's main selling point that they highlight is the SIEGE engine, so ... what other benefit is there?

Quote from: Spinachcat;452515It's an embarrassment. How nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s is laughably shameful. Palladium Fantasy came the closest. It's not like there weren't shelves of other fantasy RPGs. Hell, even the Wizardry video games used whackass descending AC. AAC is the one thing I am truly grateful for from D20.

Sorry, I can't let that slide.  Just because YOU cannot understand it doesn't mean it's an "embarrassment".

(the following example is reference namely to 2e D&D)  The benefit of descending AC is that it allows for you to quickly front-load a number-to-beat on the d20 through the equation THAC0 - AC.  So if a player declares that their THAC0 16 character is attacking the AC 3 monster, the DM tells the player "Try to roll a (16-3=13) 13 or better on a d20".  To do the same thing with ascending AC, you need to do the following equation:  AC - BAB + 10.  And unlike THAC0 and DAC which is constrained on a 20-point field (19 to 0 and -10 to +10, respectively), BAB and AAC have no such restrictions so you could end up with a +28 BAB against an AC 42.  It's not a huge difference, I know, but my point is that it does have its benefits.

Now, in 1e A&D (which I am not overly familiar with) which didn't have THAC0 as much as 2e did, I think the benefit was mostly just the constrained 20-point field might've made it easier to layout on a table, and tables were oh-so-popular back then.  But that is just my guess without doing any research into it.

I like ascending AC for 4e D&D and when I get LotFP I will probably use it for that too, but if I run Basic or 2e D&D then it will be descending all the way.

(putting this back since jgants quotes it) I think all that needs to be said about the SIEGE engine has already been said; I felt it was a good idea, but very poorly implemented. And really, C&C's main selling point that they highlight is the SIEGE engine, so ... what other benefit is there?

Quote from: Spinachcat;452515It's an embarrassment. How nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s is laughably shameful. Palladium Fantasy came the closest. It's not like there weren't shelves of other fantasy RPGs. Hell, even the Wizardry video games used whackass descending AC. AAC is the one thing I am truly grateful for from D20.

You know, just because YOU cannot understand it does not make it an embarrassment.

Quote from: islan;452590I think all that needs to be said about the SIEGE engine has already been said; I felt it was a good idea, but very poorly implemented.  And really, C&C's main selling point that they highlight is the SIEGE engine, so ... what other benefit is there?

Exactly.  

The main problem with C&C (aside from editing issues) was that it's one main gimmick sucked, leaving very little reason to play it over any of the other clones.

So now you have a mechanic that doesn't work very well, a unified resolution mechanic with very little support (lack of skills, combat manuevers, and other things used in standard d20), and completely lacking the flavor of older editions of D&D.

Sure, the game is simpler than d20, making it easier to modify in theory, though the way primes and class abilities work can make that a bit tricky (unless you don't really care about trying to have things balanced or niche protection).

Then there's the compatability problem.  The whole point of other clones was to be cross-compatible easily with other editions of D&D.  But C&C isn't 100% compatible - not only do you have to adjust AC values, but they use different HD types, different treasure types, different saving throw values, etc.

Quote from: jgants;452593(unless you don't really care about trying to have things balanced or niche protection).

Now I understand people's issue with C&C, it's totally "unbalanced."  I have said before that I have no interest in either "balance," which cannot exist mechanically in any kind of meaningful way, or "niche protection."

Speaking of which, "niche protection" makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Is this another piece of internet wankery that people who don't play often make up so there's something to talk about?  I don't understand what's meant here by "niche," is it a designation of role within an adventuring group (i.e. Wizard, Fighter, etc)?  If so, why should I care?  What kind of groups are you folks playing in where this is an issue?

Quote from: joewolz;452597Now I understand people's issue with C&C, it's totally "unbalanced."  I have said before that I have no interest in either "balance," which cannot exist mechanically in any kind of meaningful way, or "niche protection."

Speaking of which, "niche protection" makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Is this another piece of internet wankery that people who don't play often make up so there's something to talk about?  I don't understand what's meant here by "niche," is it a designation of role within an adventuring group (i.e. Wizard, Fighter, etc)?  If so, why should I care?  What kind of groups are you folks playing in where this is an issue?

Sir, you seem to not know what you are talking about, so why are you talking about it?

So you like C&C, but you don't use the SIEGE engine.  Therefore, discussing about the merits of the SIEGE engine has pretty much nothing for you.  Therefore, in response to your "why should I care?" question, I respond that you shouldn't.  Go!  Have fun with it, and do not let the evils of comparison bring you down!  But for those of us who wish to weigh C&C's merits to other retro-clones, the usefulness of the SIEGE engine does actually mean something.

EDIT

And, just to clear something up, no one has said that C&C is unbalanced.  jgants just said that you could easily modify the SIEGE engine to fit your preferences, the only thing standing in the way being Primes and class-abilities, and that it's easy to get by those if you don't care about balance or the concept of niche-protection.  And really, houseruling anything is easy when you don't care about such things as that.

Quote from: joewolz;452597Now I understand people's issue with C&C, it's totally "unbalanced."  I have said before that I have no interest in either "balance," which cannot exist mechanically in any kind of meaningful way, or "niche protection."

Speaking of which, "niche protection" makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Is this another piece of internet wankery that people who don't play often make up so there's something to talk about?  I don't understand what's meant here by "niche," is it a designation of role within an adventuring group (i.e. Wizard, Fighter, etc)?  If so, why should I care?  What kind of groups are you folks playing in where this is an issue?

I don't have an issue with balance, I'm saying that if you are trying for balance with your house rules, concepts like primes and the way class abilities work tends to make it more difficult.

As for niche protection, its the basic concept that if you are going to have a class system, each class should be able to contribute something.  I don't see any point in having a class system if each class doesn't have its own protected niche.

Quote from: islan;452599And, just to clear something up, no one has said that C&C is unbalanced.  jgants just said that you could easily modify the SIEGE engine to fit your preferences, the only thing standing in the way being Primes and class-abilities, and that it's easy to get by those if you don't care about balance or the concept of niche-protection.  And really, houseruling anything is easy when you don't care about such things as that.

Yes, exactly.

I was specifically thinking in terms of one of the most common things I heard since the game came out: trying to bolt on a skill system mechanic that would play nicely with primes, not get too confusing by adding yet another type of modifier, and without making certain class abilities irrelevent.  I know Castle Xygag had something for that, but I remember not really liking what they did (granted it was a long time ago since I really thought about it).

Well... I still like it enough to run it or play it. Just won't go out of my way to do so.

If we happen to be looking for a fast go-to game for fantasy, or everyone wants to play a one-shot, or it happens that a non-gaming group wants to learn how to play, I'd offer up a C&C game.

I'm running a C&C game currently and have had only one issue with it; Encumbrance.

To fix this problem it took me all of 3 minutes - the time it took to print the second page of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess character sheet 5 times (one for each of my players). I use that for my encumbrance rules.

The SIEGE engine (of which encumbrance is not a part) has been nothing short of successful for me and my players. I gave each of them a print out of which Attributes go with which Saves, and everything has worked out fine. Roll high and add 6 to your roll along with any other bonuses. What's the problem?

Further, I've had zero compatibility issues. Every monster I use comes out of the 1st edition Monster Manual and MMII (and Fiend Folio).
Granted, I use the treasure types from C&C instead of the AD&D ones (when I use them at all), simply because I find them less confusing and I like the font a lot more (my eyes ain't what they used to be) than the ancient D&D tomes. Most of the time, any treasure they get is set by me for the purpose of story, rather than rolling on a random table anyway (besides, the players have rarely fought any random monster in its lair anyway)

As for skills and feats; I don't like them, I don't use them, and the players (all either complete noobs to RPGs or old school 1st/2nd edition AD&D players) haven't even noticed. Possibly because my style of running a game isn't dependent on dice rolling, and I like my players to have the freedom that set skills do not allow.

Quote from: David Johansen;452542Actually Thieves Guild had ascending AC in the eighties.

The funny thing is they had AC 0 as unarmored and you had a THACO to which you added the target's AC

That's what Stars Without Number does, adds in the targets AC. I find it odd frankly.

Quote from: jgants;452614As for niche protection, its the basic concept that if you are going to have a class system, each class should be able to contribute something.  I don't see any point in having a class system if each class doesn't have its own protected niche.

Because it reflects the "reality" of the setting. Or the balance is handled through roleplaying mechanics rather than dice mechanics. There are lots of reason why classes doesn't need to be mechanically balanced. And there are good reasons why some system would want to have a balanced class system. In the end it depends on the goal and intent of the game's designer.

Quote from: islan;452592You know, just because YOU cannot understand it does not make it an embarrassment.

I understand Descending AC just fine, especially how its a system failure. Of course, coming from wargaming consulting tables was part of the general gaming concept. However, this made no sense by 2e when so many other RPGs had dispensed with the need for tables. Tunnels & Trolls had nuked any need for tables and charts in 1976 so the precedent existed from the earliest days.

So yeah, an embarrassment of bad game design, doubly so when the very simple solution was staring us all in the face for over two decades.

Quote from: Spinachcat;452680So yeah, an embarrassment of bad game design, doubly so when the very simple solution was staring us all in the face for over two decades.

"Why do a calculation once," eh, "when you can do it repeatedly?"

That's "a solution to a problem" and "good game design" for your personal aesthetic, but, man, you really should consider the possibility that people have quite sensible reasons for not sharing your opinion when we have had decades to consider and test different approaches.

Your attitude is no more a new idea than the crackpot pseudo-science that gets recycled year after year.

Simple, fast matrices like those in parts of Chainmail and OD&D were to my mind an advance over adding up lists of factors. Donald Featherstone was among the popularizers in the historical wargames hobby.

Going further in that direction, as in for instance Jeff Grubb's Marvel Super Heroes -- and Greg Gorden's developments in James Bond 007, DC Heroes, and Torg -- is what I hail as innovation, not retrogression to the "primeval school" of +X and -Y ad nauseum!

(Letting dice do the math -- proportional modification -- is another powerful technique.)

"One size fits all" really does not. The art lies in elegantly matching choice of method to the work at hand. Sometimes a table will be preferable, sometimes a formula and list of factors, sometimes a deck of cards. Different designers, or different projects, may take different approaches as a matter of style.

"Bad game design," my ass. WotC wishes it could match the sales, and hopes to have as much longevity as old D&D (including proto-D&D) has so far. From 1971 to 2011 is 40 years, and if you think that's for want of alternatives then you are on some other planet.

Good design involves careful thinking and testing, not thoughtlessly following sound-bite ideological prescriptions.

And in defense of the THAC0 of 2e:

The benefit I have with it in 2e is that it is very easy to "front-load" a number-to-hit on the die roll, using the rather simple (if subtraction doesn't bother you) equation THAC0-AC.  So if a player declares that their THAC0 16 character is attacking an AC 3 creature, I as the DM just say "try to roll (16-3=13) 13 or higher on a d20".  With AAC, this same equation becomes AC-BAB; not too different, I know, but the benefit with DAC is that the AC is restrained between the values +10 and -10.  In other words, you are only adding or subtracting a number between 0 and 10, whereas with AAC you'd be having such things as a BAB of 16 and a AC of 31.  I also enjoy the benefit that players, when making an attack roll, only having to worry about modifiers from the Stat (Str or Dex) and the magic bonus from their weapon, whereas in AAC the BAB is tied in as an extra bonus (so really the equation becomes AC-(BAB + Stat Mod + Magic [+Feat, etc]) -- and yes, this can be front-loaded as well, but I have seen many a player accidentally drop modifiers just because they can't keep all of them straight.

I'm in no way saying that DAC is better than AAC, just that it has its benefits, just as AAC has its benefits.  If I am running 4e D&D or LotFP, I'll use AAC just fine.  But if I'm running 2e or Basic, it's DAC all the way.

EDIT

Also, for front-loading purposes, I like to have players have a "modified THAC0" on their character sheet, which is THAC0-(Str or Dex mod).  That way the only number they actually add to their d20 roll is a magic bonus from their weapon.  This has worked out very well for me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;452680I understand Descending AC just fine, especially how its a system failure. Of course, coming from wargaming consulting tables was part of the general gaming concept. However, this made no sense by 2e when so many other RPGs had dispensed with the need for tables. Tunnels & Trolls had nuked any need for tables and charts in 1976 so the precedent existed from the earliest days.

So yeah, an embarrassment of bad game design, doubly so when the very simple solution was staring us all in the face for over two decades.

You constantly saying "it's bad" doesn't make it so.  The tautology of "it's bad because it's bad" is stupid and indefensible.

You know what's bad?  Constantly varying formulas every round - that's what your vaunted later designs brought to the table, and they're an embarrassment, not something that can be looked up, one time, on a table.