Well, I don't get to play much anymore, only about once per month sometimes twice. Ya know, the wife and kid keeping me busy. Plus I was hired to write for a local sports mag and the first project they gave me was pretty big. However, over the last year or so I've been playing mostly C&C just for the simple fact that for our group (all married with kids) it's easy to prep for, the game plays fast and has a little bit of the feel from our younger days.

I've found that I really don't need anything more in terms of rules for a fantasy game.

Quote from: RandallS;257221Even back in 1976, players in groups I was familiar with would write the numbers 0 through 9 on their character sheet and the target number they needed to hit that AC next to it. We'd roll the dice, glance at the chart on our character sheet and tell the DM "I hit armor class 5" (or whatever the best armor we could hit with that roll was) and the DM would tell us if it hit the monster or not. It wasn't any slower than the WOTC D&D hit roll.

The group with whom I played the longest mostly used the old Goldenrod character sheets. They, like many others at the time, had a little table with a line for each weapon that showed what it took to hit from 10 to -10 AC.

So, yeah, same deal.

But I, personally, like the d20 AC/BAB method just as well; perhaps slightly better - but it's not by a significant margin.

What I didn't like about the old to-hit tables was that they were not completely regular. Thac0 was a big improvement as you just needed to remember one data point and instantly knew the rest (unless you couldn't subtract negative numbers).  D20's method is essentially Thac0 except with revised AC there are no negatives to complicate things.

What do you mean by not completely regular?  The repeating 20s?

I, too, loved THAC0 when it was introduced, because then my players could stop griping about filling in the little tables on their character sheets.  Those goldenrod sheets had style in spades, though.

It's been a very long time, but I seem to recall bits where the to-hit either didn't change or jumped by 2 (in addition to the truncated endpoints) so you had to use the table instead of do the math.

Quote from: KenHR;257301What do you mean by not completely regular?  The repeating 20s?

I, too, loved THAC0 when it was introduced, because then my players could stop griping about filling in the little tables on their character sheets.  Those goldenrod sheets had style in spades, though.

I found some online and downloaded them...I just have to remember where I found them.

The move is supposed to be written in a little boot. Kills me.

Quote from: Nicephorus;257302It's been a very long time, but I seem to recall bits where the to-hit either didn't change or jumped by 2 (in addition to the truncated endpoints) so you had to use the table instead of do the math.

It's in the DMG, and there is even a note about how to deal with it, IIRC - but I don't have the DMG with me at work (fancy that!)

Quote from: James J Skach;257315I found some online and downloaded them...I just have to remember where I found them.

The move is supposed to be written in a little boot. Kills me.

I think they're available on the Knights'n'Knaves message board.

Somewhere I found a cool pdf that allowed you to choose which class sheet you were using so all the sheets were in one handy file.  It might be K&K...nope, just checked.

I'll send a link when I find it.

The little boot was great.  I liked the "Weapon in Hand" illustration on each sheet, too.

Sounds like you're talking about Mad Irishman's 1e character sheets PDFs.

Here it is!

http://www.mad-irishman.net/pub_dnd_1e.html

EDIT: Philotomy got it before me!

The repeating 20s from 1e were only a problem if you were calculating, rather than glancing at your character sheet for the correct number.  (In other words, there were only a problem if you were using THAC0, which I typically don't.)

Robert Fisher has some interesting comments on THAC0.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;257328Sounds like you're talking about Mad Irishman's 1e character sheets PDFs.

I just got a glance cause I'm off to football but those look...f'n awesome! Much better than the ones I have.

Thanks to Ken and Phil.

Quote from: Zachary The First;257087By the way, Philotomy, while we have you here, I just want to say your OD&D musings are superb, and a fantastic inspiration.

Ditto!

I was having a problem with deciding how to make "all weapons do 1D6" work out for my game and your solution is exactly what I needed.   BTW, here's what Philotomy came up with:

Weapon + Shield = +1 AC as usual
Two Weapon Fighting = +1 Attack bonus
Two-Handed Weapon = roll 2D6, keep the higher roll

It makes a great differentiator as well.   Daggers can only be used one-handed, but you could use your sword or mace with two hands if desired, giving you more options.

Okay, here's how the SIEGE engine makes sense to me.

Let's take the aforementioned dudes with 3 Dex and 18 Dex.  We'll assume that the OP had meant that the Dex 3 guy had Dex as a prime, whereas the Dex 18 guy did not.  

Now.  Dex 3 dude was born clumsy.  Knockin' shit over anytime he tried to scratch his nose, and whatnot.  Aware of this flaw, he took time to concentrate on making the best of what he has.  He's still a natural maladroit, but he's better prepared for it -- he knows where he's likely to goof up.

He starts adventuring and, as a result, making some SIEGE rolls.  Let's say that he has to catch a magic frog as it leaps out of an enchanted pool, or something.  At the moment of leaping forward to catch that frog, he at least knows what he's doing; he knows how to compensate for the fact that he's a klutz.  Ergo, he gets a lower Challenge Base.  The fact remains, however, that he is a klutz, so whatever he rolls, he's still taking a -3 on it.

Now let's turn to our Dex 18 guy.  He was born a natural athlete; he could snatch a penny from the master's hand and blah blah blah.  thing is, though, he never really did anything with it (Dex is a secondary for him, right?).  Sure, he can dodge raindrops, but he really isn't used to it.  When he has to catch that damn frog*, he's got a definite benefit (a +3 to his roll), but since it's not the kind of thing he usually does, his challenge base is higher.  

In practice, this works out very well for me.  It gives me a fast, easy way to define who and what my characters are, and it lets me play around with their personalities.

Let's say I roll up a swashbuckler** character, but his Charisma is a lousy 6.  What to do?  I'll make it a Prime and say this: he's learned a few good one-liners, knows when to keep his mouth shut and has developed great confidence in himself.  He still can't mack on a girl on the fly, nor is he any help if he opens his mouth for anything but those studied one-liners.  

And his smile looks like someone dug a hole in a cat's butt and lined it with pebbles.  

There.  Done.  I have an interesting character with a bit of background, a handle for role-playing him and his own set of challenges to overcome.  You can ask for more, but -- do you have to?

* What's so important about this frog?  Why does it need to be caught?  What's the enchantment?  Develop and discuss.

** In other words, a fighter with Dex as a Prime instead of Strength.  There.  House-ruled on the fly.  Thanks, SIEGE engine!

I get the explanations of "nature" vs "nurture" with regard to SIEGE and low-prime vs high-non-prime stats, but even with that explanation the +6 difference between prime and non-prime strikes me as way too big: is training really enough to completely erase all difference between the worst humanly possible natural ability (3) and the best humanly possible natural ability (18)? I don't buy it. I can see a +3 prime-bonus (bringing an average person with training up to the level of a genius with no training, or an idiot with training up to the level of an average person with no training), but not +6.