Quote from: Phillip;452991Long story short, that was A LOT of work for 6 characters versus a dungeon level with a number of monsters likewise using human type arms and armor (as opposed to fang and hide).

Of course.  Back in the day I was willing to do a lot of these sorts of calculations in advance before the game session.  (Had a lot more free time back then).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;453002The guy who had the Rules Cyclopedia aka the DM wouldn't let me read it for the first six months he had it, so I would just make up rules for whatever I wanted to do, flip my flippy paper thing until I got a number and ask him if it worked.

My response to discovering that there were more than 8 numbers required to play the game was to commission an artisan (my buddy Adam) to make me a flipper with numbers higher than 8 (I recall "72" was one of them). He betrayed me and created one of his own for his Chaotic halfling rogue with a yet higher number on it - 112! For a while, that halfling was unstoppable.

And so began the tale of John the Fighter, Half-Werebear, Half-Weretiger, Half-Wereshark, and Half-Werewolf (I got ahold of the supplement on making therianthrope PCs which was literally the only RC D&D rules I'd read for most of the time I was playing it) and eventual Therianthrope Polymath Immortal after I declared I wanted to be an immortal and flipped an "8" (the highest of all possible legitimate flips, a sign of rectitude and suitability for high office).

all of this makes me happy!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;452831I don't see ascending AC working well at all.  "how is a lower number better than a higher one" I've heard the argument go.  Well, how is 10th rate better than 1st rate?

Anyway, you're not going to change my mind, I don't see it as good, and I don't see it as "working well".  People that bitch at me about ascending AC being better than THAC0 are either ignorant or willingly ignoring the facts that in OD&D and AD&D1 it's not used for players and furthermore everything needed is on a chart.

What about us DMs? I don't give a damn if THAC0 is "used for players" or not. For me, and everyone I've ever played with.....descending armor class is an irritation. I recently ran a six month AD&D campaign using those 1e combat matrixes, and after that campaign, I've come to the conclusion that I'll never use descending armor class again.

Being forced to consult the combat tables every single round slowed my game down...drastically. My brain just doesn't work that way any more.

It's odd. In the old days, I could use descending armor class with ease, and I liked it just fine, but with ascending AC, I just don't have to think about it, as it just feels so much more intuitive to me now. I guess 3e has spoiled me, and I never thought that would happen. If there's one game mechanic that I'd change in 1e, it would be Armor Class. I'd send descending AC to the dust bin of history, and replace it with ascending AC. Take note that I say this as someone who still feels nostalgic attachment to descending AC, but that I can no longer easily use it in play as a DM.

Quote from: thedungeondelverEven if I was inclined to use THAC0, why is it any more of a mess than what d20 does?  The answer is, it isn't.  Both are formulas, and you add and subtract in both.  "Okay my base AC is 10, add 5 for my armor, but I'm cursed this round so subtract 2...but that ends next round and the prayer spell goes off so I'll be at +1..." is no less clunky than "You're a 2nd level fighter with a +1 sword and a +1 strength bonus.  You need an 18 to hit." deducted by looking at a table.

Looking at tables every single round of combat can be a bitch. And no, I can't be arsed to memorize that stuff any more.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambLooking at tables every single round of combat can be a bitch. And no, I can't be arsed to memorize that stuff any more.

Whatever works best for you is cool, whether that's buying and using 3e books or subtracting AC from 19 or 20 or whatever to get 'ascending' and then calculating attack bonuses. Neither course of action appeals to me.

What's "more intuitive" for you can be groovy without being "more efficient" for someone else. My own "d20 system" is more elegant than all that jazz for my taste, but it might not suit you.

Just to keep things real, let's be honest that

(A) 1E doesn't need to involve looking at tables every single round any more than 2e or 3e or C&C needs to.

"OMG! I have to look up AC and BAB, because, you know, I couldn't write them down. And OMG! I'd have to look up AC-BAB if there were pre-calculated tables, because, you know, then I couldn't do the math if I really wanted to."

Neither does 2e or 3e or C&C need to involve doing sums with every single roll, just because there are no tables to save that step.

In either case, the basic number needed on the dice does not need to be looked up if we already know what it is. What does Joe need to hit the troll? 13+, the same as last time, unless something has changed.

If there's a new + or - modifier, then thats just the same at this point, however we got here.

(B) For some of us, tables are quicker and more accurate precisely because they mean we don't need to tap memory in doing math. We just look, and there's the answer. Moving up or down X rows involves only counting, and we don't need to bother with intermediary sums -- we need merely look at the final answer.

Maybe for you it's easier to look up two factors and then do math than to look up two factors and see the answer already at their intersection. Different minds work in different patterns.

Me, I like "Joe(Troll) = 13".

Roll-under percentiles or death!

Quote from: jgants;452825I think descending AC was fine back for the chart days, myself.

I don't think AC really reached "bad design" stage until the introduction of negative AC combined with THAC0.  To me, that was when the whole thing just got stupid.

Ascending AC is the easier and better way to go, and the kids are right to snicker at us old codgers for using the needlessly complex system of armor class ranging from 10 to -10 (Gygax had a hard-on for needless complexity, what can I say?)

Were it not for the fact that I'm so used to descending AC that using anything else would be like trying to drive on the left like they do in the UK and other silly countries, I'd gladly join the whipper-snappers.

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 should see what home computers were like back then, or remember that a VCR could cost more than $500. Feel free to be smug about Members Only jackets, too.

Quote from: Elfdart;453243Ascending AC is the easier and better way to go, and the kids are right to snicker at us old codgers for using the needlessly complex system of armor class ranging from 10 to -10 (Gygax had a hard-on for needless complexity, what can I say?)

Were it not for the fact that I'm so used to descending AC that using anything else would be like trying to drive on the left like the do in the UK and other silly countries, I'd gladly join the whipper-snappers.

When I  first got back into playing rpg games shortly after 3.5E D&D was released, initially I had a hard time adjusting to ascending AC.  (I took a long 15+ years hiatus away from rpg games, where I completely missed 2E AD&D and 3E D&D).  I was so use to thinking in terms of descending AC from my 1E AD&D days.

Gradually I was able to adapt to thinking in terms of ascending AC.  Today I'm fine with either descending or ascending AC.

Quote from: ggroy;452972The fastest method I used back in the 1E AD&D era, was to just write down the to-hit numbers each individual player had to roll in order to hit a particular monster which I had prepared in advanced for several encounters.  (Also I would write down the to-hit numbers the monsters had to roll in order to hit a particular player).

It saved time every round during combat, from having to do table lookups.

I did something similar back in the day: I'd write down what a fighter, cleric, magic-user or thief of X-level would hit with a natural 20. In other words kind of a 4-pronged THAC0. I'm not one for acronyms, but I guess it could be called HO20: "Hits On 20".

The hysterical reaction to THAC0 from some quarters is just grogtardspeak for "David 'Zeb' Cook raped my childhood!"

Quote from: Elfdart;453248The hysterical reaction to THAC0 from some quarters is just grogtardspeak for "David 'Zeb' Cook raped my childhood!"

I completely missed 2E AD&D.

Was THAC0 that vilified during the 1990's in some quarters?

Quote from: Elfdart;453248The hysterical reaction to THAC0 from some quarters is just grogtardspeak for "David 'Zeb' Cook raped my childhood!"

Speaking for myself I have no problem using ascending AC in a game of 3.5 or Swords & Wizardry (I'm playing in a 3.5 game right now FYI). So I wouldn't consider my own liking of descending ACs in AD&D to be hysterical or anything of that nature.

As for Zeb raping my childhood, it just wasn't the case at all. I had a lot of fun playing second edition back in the day. Ran games of Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, homebrews, played some Birthright... I look back at these games with fond memories. It's just not how I look at second edition now, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the same pleasure playing it now, for a whole host of reasons that make me favor pretty much any edition of the game to it now. 2nd edition to me is pretty much 1E with everything that made it cool either completely twisted or rendered flavorless by nonsensical tweaks, or some proto-3E that just doesn't have that latter system's polish.

Just for the record.

Isn't there more to C&C than "ascending AC"?

New takes on character classes and levels? Experience point awards? Progression of saving throws? Initiative system? Monsters, spells, magic items?

Quote from: Elfdart;453243Ascending AC is the easier and better way to go, and the kids are right to snicker at us old codgers for using the needlessly complex system of armor class ranging from 10 to -10 (Gygax had a hard-on for needless complexity, what can I say?)

First, I don't see any special complexity inherent in that. It's 'complex' only figuratively, not literally, and only in the aesthetic opinion of some of the people who insist on not using it as it was primarily meant to be used.

The method upon which they insist is objectively more complex an undertaking, in that it introduces computation. That makes cries of, "OMG! Complexity!" laughable.

The weight of evidence suggests to me that it was not Gygax who instigated counting down instead of up. However, as ACs beyond the original eight were introduced in the Greyhawk supplement, I reckon he is responsible for all that.

It's just a shorthand, though, in any case. Even in 4e, it makes a difference that one has curseforged scale armor +2 instead of some other +9 to AC.

QuoteWere it not for the fact that I'm so used to descending AC that using anything else would be like trying to drive on the left like they do in the UK and other silly countries, I'd gladly join the whipper-snappers.

Well, it was apparently so familiar to a user base before D&D was even available for you (or anyone) to buy!

It was only more so by 1977, when the first AD&D book was published.

I think Gygax wrote briefly, probably in the DMG, chalking up retention of the scheme to this very consideration, but I can't find the passage just now.

Quote from: ggroy;453250I completely missed 2E AD&D.

Was THAC0 that vilified during the 1990's in some quarters?

Elfdart is a fucking cartoon, ignore him.  I've explained why THAC0 doesn't "work" (in 1e AD&D), and ED got kicked in the nuts on the dragonsfoot and K&KA playgrounds so anything older than 3e makes him cry.

To get back on track....I find Castles & Crusades to be functional enough, but boring. I've run a couple sessions, and I can easily run my decades-long fantasy campaign with it, which is great. But when I flip through the book, it doesn't make me feel anything, except the crushing weight of boredom. I want to feel inspired when I flip through a gaming product, and C&C doesn't provide me with inspiration. It doesn't have the quirky Gygaxian charm of 1e, the awesome campaign settings of 2e, the options of 3e, and the balance of 4e.

I only have the first edition C&C Player's Handbook with the awful writing, editing, art, and layout. I've heard Troll Lords has improved the editing issues, though I'm not sure I care enough to find out at this point. Don't get me wrong. There's a serviceable system hiding in there somewhere, but presentation counts. If the presentation of a product blows goats, then I usually won't stick around to explore that product's strengths. That said....even with its huge flaws, I'd play it again, as I could run my campaign with it, easy peasy.

I think my books are second printings (the color of the cover changed to the dark green with the 3rd printing, right?). They are much better layed out than the 1st printings, the paper is glossy... they're really nice books.