TheRPGSite

So I have read a bunch of different OSR materials and the nature of its combat maths kinda confound me in how they are 'supposed' to work.
As you level up, you go from things being hard to hit but easy to effect with spells, to things being easy to hit but hard to effect with spells.
I also know spells also scale up in effect, and usually do something on a successful saving throw anyway or don't grant one at all.

I'm left unsure what this is supposed to make higher-level combat like. Increasingly deterministic?
What's the effect of the combat supposed to be?

This isn't me judging it or the like, I just feel like im not 'getting' it and want some feedback/ explanation.

It's probably the case that the maths were just what they thought up at the time and didn't think it through any further then that.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 07:06:51 AM
I'm left unsure what this is supposed to make higher-level combat like. Increasingly deterministic?
What's the effect of the combat supposed to be?

It's not increasingly deterministic - you go from Saving on say a 14 at the start to saving on say a 2 or 3 at the end. But you're making a lot more Saves - and so are the monsters. I once (in the '80s) hit a high level 1e PC with a platoon of low level Clerics all casting Command, I think he made around 18 Saves before he rolled a 1. I also more recently Disintegrated my 9 year old son's MU-17 he'd played up from MU-4 over several years since the age of 5. He needed a 4 to save, made me roll and I got a 2. There were tears, but I feel it was a growth experience. :D

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 07:06:51 AM

This isn't me judging it or the like, I just feel like im not 'getting' it and want some feedback/ explanation.

It's probably the case that the maths were just what they thought up at the time and didn't think it through any further then that.

I think a fair bit of thought went into the Saving Throw tables; they are a major factor in turning magic & special attacks from rare & super deadly to common & mostly survivable - but still scary.  Seeing the balls-up 3e made of saving throws, with Fighters getting *more* vulnerable at higher level*, really brought home to me the cleverness of the original system.

I'm less sure about the to-hit tables being fully thought through; the original Chainmail combat system was very different and generally gave many more attacks at higher level, not a to-hit bonus. In that system a +1 weapon was a serious combat boost.  I think it was more about simulating greater skill than much thought about the game effect. Eg I don't see how Against the Giants can really work if the Fighter PCs are still attacking 1/round for ca 1d8+3 damage; even taking down a single giant is a huge slog.

*Lesson - never let an Ars Magica designer design your D&D edition, or you'll get Wizards & Grogs instead. :p

Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2021, 07:35:17 AM
It's not increasingly deterministic - you go from Saving on say a 14 at the start to saving on say a 2 or 3 at the end. But you're making a lot more Saves - and so are the monsters.

I'm not seeing it. As in can you elaborate further? I mean sure if you specifically get more foes with effects that target saves: Sure. But I don't see anything really allowing PCs to force more saves on foes (outside of being a wizard with more spells), and I don't see foes really force more saves (outside of the rise from very low HD to somewhat higher).

QuoteSeeing the balls-up 3e made of saving throws, with Fighters getting *more* vulnerable at higher level*, really brought home to me the cleverness of the original system.

Well outside of just bad maths on their end (IE just poorly made monsters that didn't follow the maths that they set for themselves to follow), the 'intended' power band just averages out to like a consistent 50% or so.
Player HP is also much higher in something like 3e, so even with theoretically worse saves, the effects are more survivable overall. Outside of the save or suck stuff which exists in every edition, unfortunately.

In addition the nature of the scaling means that lower level foes become much less of a threat then they are in earlier editions. As you pointed out that a bunch of low-level clerics throwing around command can force more saves, and the compound effect of more saves makes it more deadly unless your at the super highest character level. While in 3e because those spells save DCs will be lower to the fighters saves, they won't be as much of a threat.

However 3e maths are bungled in execution many ways, which took like 20 years of design by others to fix. But the theory behind it I believe doesn't get enough credit.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 07:58:09 AM

Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2021, 07:35:17 AM
It's not increasingly deterministic - you go from Saving on say a 14 at the start to saving on say a 2 or 3 at the end. But you're making a lot more Saves - and so are the monsters.

I'm not seeing it. As in can you elaborate further? I mean sure if you specifically get more foes with effects that target saves: Sure. But I don't see anything really allowing PCs to force more saves on foes (outside of being a wizard with more spells), and I don't see foes really force more saves (outside of the rise from very low HD to somewhat higher).

QuoteSeeing the balls-up 3e made of saving throws, with Fighters getting *more* vulnerable at higher level*, really brought home to me the cleverness of the original system.

Well outside of just bad maths on their end (IE just poorly made monsters that didn't follow the maths that they set for themselves to follow), the 'intended' power band just averages out to like a consistent 50% or so.
Player HP is also much higher in something like 3e, so even with theoretically worse saves, the effects are more survivable overall. Outside of the save or suck stuff which exists in every edition, unfortunately.

In addition the nature of the scaling means that lower level foes become much less of a threat then they are in earlier editions. As you pointed out that a bunch of low-level clerics throwing around command can force more saves, and the compound effect of more saves makes it more deadly unless your at the super highest character level. While in 3e because those spells save DCs will be lower to the fighters saves, they won't be as much of a threat.

However 3e maths are bungled in execution many ways, which took like 20 years of design by others to fix. But the theory behind it I believe doesn't get enough credit.

In old school D&D, you do face more saves as you increase in level, and the effects also become more serious. MUs go from a single spell, to dozens, and from single-target spells to those that affect large groups; and more and more monsters appear with effects like poison or turn to stone. The effects also become more dangerous, with high level opponents causing more severe effects on a failed save. The chance to save increasing in absolute terms means as saves become more numerous and dangerous, they also become easier to withstand. And, because the resources to counter negative effects also increase with level, the ability to deal with something like a poisoned or a petrified party member also increases. Magic becomes more commonplace, varied, and dangerous, but it doesn't overwhelm the party.

That's a strong contrast with third edition, where as the magical effects faced become more dangerous and numerous, the chance of saving against each of them at best stays on par, but in practice tends to decrease, as casters pump up their spell DCs and target poor saves. The increase in hit points just means damage causing spells are ignored, while spells that incapacitate on a failed save are spammed.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 09:41:57 AMMagic becomes more commonplace, varied, and dangerous, but it doesn't overwhelm the party.

This just feels like arbitrary favoritism to me. But im not gonna fight more about classic D&D favoritism.
The question is about how old school combat maths worked...So the way Im guessing is:

Discouraging. As in while you can in theory 'tank' more stuff at higher level, combat still remains as deadly as before in a way because the game is very 'offensive' oriented.
Engaging in combat at all without stacked decks towards you is a bad idea even at high level.

It also discourages being invested in a single character too much since death comes so easy. Until you can afford many ressurections I guess. Strange economy D&D has.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 10:04:37 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 09:41:57 AMMagic becomes more commonplace, varied, and dangerous, but it doesn't overwhelm the party.

This just feels like arbitrary favoritism to me. But im not gonna fight more about classic D&D favoritism.

What? Seriously, what? How is that "favoritism"? I literally just described how old school D&D works in play.

This and your other posts make it seem like you have no experience with the game, but you've decided in theory how it works, and you're just ignoring everything other people say that doesn't match your preconceptions. S'mon and I are speaking from practical experience. That's how the game works. I'm also very familiar with how third edition plays, as well.

You're also completely wrong about death. After about 4th level, death in old school D&D becomes pretty rare. There are a number of reasons why, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 10:16:13 AM
What? Seriously, what? How is that "favoritism"? I literally just described how old school D&D works in play.

I have heard like 6 different ways how old-school D&D is supposed to work. At times it's this brutal mistress that's supposed to be utterly cruel and unforgiving, and you have to have like 6 replacement characters in the wings and we LIKED it that way goshdarnit!. And at times its this way better powertrip then anything that came afterwards. Its better when it had less rules, and they where worse designed but thats a benefit because it taught people about game design.

I just have to take what everybody's claims are about it with a grain of salt.

QuoteThis and your other posts make it seem like you have no experience with the game

I don't. Im trying to dip my toes into it with Kevins stuff because it looks so enticing but Im trying to understand how its internal logic works.
I'm largely sick of 3e (broken maths, annoying power band assumptions, etc), and Im looking for a new experience. But Im allowed to be skeptical about a 40+ year old game that I hear very conflicting information about for how great it is.

I have to assume a level of nostalgic bias from a time when everybody customized their game experience more to their table as a result making 'the best game ever' for their table alone and then talking about that home game like its what the printed materials are.

D&D 1e is like 6 different goddam editions. And like 3 of those editions ruined the game forever, and its very difficult for me to tell which one did it.

QuoteYou're also completely wrong about death. After about 4th level, death in old school D&D becomes pretty rare. There are a number of reasons why, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them.

I would be. I would also like to know how common characters after level 3 were.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 10:30:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 10:16:13 AM
What? Seriously, what? How is that "favoritism"? I literally just described how old school D&D works in play.

I have heard like 6 different ways how old-school D&D is supposed to work. At times it's this brutal mistress that's supposed to be utterly cruel and unforgiving, and you have to have like 6 replacement characters in the wings and we LIKED it that way goshdarnit!. And at times its this way better powertrip then anything that came afterwards. Its better when it had less rules, and they where worse designed but thats a benefit because it taught people about game design.

I just have to take what everybody's claims are about it with a grain of salt.

Okay, I can understand that. I'll post more later, but the problem isn't in the descriptions. It's a conceptual gulf. You're looking at a lot of disparate pieces, but you're missing the framework in which they fit.

And right now, you're throwing around words like nostalgia, and ruined, and displaying anger at people who say positive things about a playstyle you've decided you disliked before you gave it a chance. You're prima facie dismissing the playstyle, not giving it a fair shake. And unless you overcome your preconceptions about how the game works, you're not going to be able to see how all the pieces go together into a coherent whole.

It helps to assume that the people who like the playstyle do so for valid reasons, not because they're horribly mistaken. I'm not saying to have blind faith in something you don't understand, just to keep an open mind. A lot of people have played this way for decades, and analyzed it extensively. By contrast, your exposure is fairly superficial. Your starting assumption should be there's probably something there, you're just missing it.

The thing is, the old school playstyle is alien to most modern players. And by modern players, I'm not talking about 2020, or 2000... I'm also talking about 99.99% of the players who started in the 1980s. A lot of kids who picked up in the game in the 1980s were frustrated with D&D, for the same reasons you're frustrated today. The frustration comes from a clash of expectations.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 11:04:03 AM
And right now, you're throwing around words like nostalgia, and ruined, and displaying anger at people who say positive things about a playstyle you've decided you disliked before you gave it a chance.

I just in general dislike things when as you put it 'I don't get the conceptual gulf'.  When I was 'dissing' stuff, at no point was I criticizing the playstyle. I always say there can be many games for many kinds of people. I see way more grognards saying that modern games make you a sissy or that there is a 'right' way to play.

But lets MOVE ALONG from there. Tell me why the game gets less lethal after level 4, and then why was it so lethal up to that point. And whats the point of this design decision.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 10:04:37 AM
you can in theory 'tank' more stuff at higher level, combat still remains as deadly as before in a way because the game is very 'offensive' oriented.
Engaging in combat at all without stacked decks towards you is a bad idea even at high level.

It also discourages being invested in a single character too much since death comes so easy. Until you can afford many resurrections I guess. Strange economy D&D has.

Yes and yes for the 1st two observations.

Raise dead is encouraged to be made available early and often.  For a service if PCs can't afford to pay.  The idea is death by simple hit point loss is "check" not "checkmate".  But there is a penalty in loss of CON and declining likelihood of getting out of "check".  However some less common monsters/spells/etc. have attacks that mangle/ruin the body, disintegrate it, whatever.  So there is a risk that the easy button of raise dead doesn't work and you need the harder button of resurrection or wish - but wish is a rare-but-not-very-rare item. 

1E was a game that decided to make "deadly" a 7, and "ease of coming back to life" a 3 - that adds up to "10"
Other editions and games don't like "ease of coming back to life" at 3 and want it to be rare or whatever, so they make that a 7 and compensate by reducing "deadly" to 3.  That also adds up to 10.
But you can't keep ease of coming back to life at 7 and then drop a 7 deadliness into the game - that doesn't work.  It goes over "10".

You have to accept all of the design predicates to use 1E.  Most of the people not grokking it, in conversation, end up saying "well I don't like this or that so I ignore it, and then it seems like all these other parts produce an unfun experience".  Yes.

Quote from: EOTB on February 27, 2021, 05:15:19 PMYou have to accept all of the design predicates to use 1E.  Most of the people not grokking it, in conversation, end up saying "well I don't like this or that so I ignore it, and then it seems like all these other parts produce an unfun experience".  Yes.

Interesting. I may just try it out that way. Maybe make an in-universe explanation why the PCs and a few others are easy to ressurect, while death is harsh for others.

Edit: But doesn't raise Dead only kick in at level 9? Isn't it still super lethal up until then?

The unspoken context of AD&D is the city of greyhawk with the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk approximately 1 hour away from the biggest metropolis on the planet.  EVERYTHING in AD&D is calibrated to the PCs having access to almost any service they could imagine or desire. 

That doesn't mean that a predicate is that the DM run it that way - it's to understand the null calibration, that's all.  So by taking the campaign setting to one of resource scarcity (such as "there's no one who can cast raise dead for 750 miles") it is upping the difficulty level. 

FWIW, even if I'm starting out a campaign in a pastoral village with only a level 2 or 3 local cleric, I give them scrolls of raise dead, or a rod of resurrection.  Magic items exist to explain probability anomalies.  And that service is available to those who will do a service in return.

EDIT - also, it's helpful to remember that the rules for PCs in the PHB are not necessarily rules for NPCs.  There's nothing wrong with having a 0-level NPC that has the power to raise the dead for some cool proto-saint type of reason, and no other powers.  Or whatever you can imagine.  1E is not some tight system where the DM puts together everything with the same widgets made available to players to build PCs, because it all wraps into an algorithm of all.

Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2021, 07:35:17 AMI also more recently Disintegrated my 9 year old son's MU-17 he'd played up from MU-4 over several years since the age of 5. He needed a 4 to save, made me roll and I got a 2. There were tears, but I feel it was a growth experience. :D

Oh, there was growth there for sure. The growth of his undying hatred for you.

I'd sleep with a gun under my pillow after that one if I were you.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on February 27, 2021, 06:02:00 PM

Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2021, 07:35:17 AMI also more recently Disintegrated my 9 year old son's MU-17 he'd played up from MU-4 over several years since the age of 5. He needed a 4 to save, made me roll and I got a 2. There were tears, but I feel it was a growth experience. :D

Oh, there was growth there for sure. The growth of his undying hatred for you.

I'd sleep with a gun under my pillow after that one if I were you.

He tells me he loves me several times a day. Maybe he doesn't want me to kill his PC again.  ;D

Stick to say BX or AD&D or even 2e. Any thing from the OSR may or may not be actually functional if someones took it upon themselves to "fix" something.

One thing to consider is that in older editions Level 9 or so was considered fairly high level. Over time that has been pushed back some or the rate of EXP gain shifted while the curve has remained relatively stable oddly enough.

On OD&D Taise Dead is gained at level 6. The Raised character has to make a CON based save and is out of it for 2 weeks.
In BX for example Raise Dead is not gained till level 7 for Clerics. And a raised person has 1 HP and can do little more than walk for two weeks.
In AD&D Raise Dead is gained at level 9 and the raised person is in a similarley bad stat, 1 HP and bedridden for 1 day per day was dead. But with the added twist that has to make a system shock save first or the raise fails. And they permanently lose a point of CON.
In 2e is the same. Just states the CON loss with the spell rather than the stat.
3e Has Raise at level 9 as well. But can raise anything willing, and heals some at 1 HP/HD, and some stat loss restored to 1. Cures some poison and disease, etc.. You lose a level if over 1st or CON if 1st level. And some other quirks. Also costs a 400g diamond.
No clue what 4e does. Probably something odd.
5e Raise is much the same as 3e, but instead is at -4 penalty instead of a CON loss, and this is diminished by one per long rest. Also costs a 500g diamond. 5e though has Revivify which can be gained earlier but must be cast within a minute of death. And some other death neutralizing or blunting spells and cantrips.

So over time Raise has been pushed back in the timeline can get it. But I suspect this correlates to shifts in the system and when it was deemed the spell would and should start coming into play. Also keep in mind some older editions required people seeking someone raised to pay a rather stiff fee for the service.

Quote from: Omega on February 27, 2021, 07:01:19 PM
On OD&D Taise Dead is gained at level 6.

Tase Dead would be a cool spell.  How do you say "Don't tase me, bro!" in zombie?  My guess: "Uhhhuuggghhhuhhh!"

If you use 3d6 rather than a 20 sider saves seem to be less harsh and easier to make.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2021, 11:24:08 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2021, 11:04:03 AM
And right now, you're throwing around words like nostalgia, and ruined, and displaying anger at people who say positive things about a playstyle you've decided you disliked before you gave it a chance.

I just in general dislike things when as you put it 'I don't get the conceptual gulf'.  When I was 'dissing' stuff, at no point was I criticizing the playstyle. I always say there can be many games for many kinds of people. I see way more grognards saying that modern games make you a sissy or that there is a 'right' way to play.

But lets MOVE ALONG from there. Tell me why the game gets less lethal after level 4, and then why was it so lethal up to that point. And whats the point of this design decision.

It is a conceptual gulf. It's a paradigm shift.

The game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta. Systemically, front line characters will have enough hp to survive a couple blows. It's no longer a razor's edge between life and death. Also, armor. Having enough money to buy a decent set of armor is huge -- a low level creature has about a 50% of hitting an unarmored or lightly armored opponent, but only about a 5% or 10% chance of hitting a heavily armored opponent. That acts as a hp multiplier. It's also when the party starts to have magical resources that allow them to deal with various extremities, like poison (slow poison can get you back to town and a cleric), and the money to afford NPC aid. Though it's 5th/6th level when clerics really start to shine.

From a meta perspective, it's also enough time for players to figure out how the game works, and stop doing things that quickly lead to death. Not expecting heroic plot immunity, using resources like hirelings and retainers, learning when to run and even that it's okay to run, how advancement works (go for the gold), marching order, precautions before sleep, weapon lengths, what level of verisimilitude is the baseline, etc. This is sometimes called "player skill", but I really dislike that term, because it's not some objective measure of skill, it's more about learning a set of conventions. Calling it the acclimatization phase might be better.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2021, 09:07:19 AMThe game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 09:53:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2021, 09:07:19 AMThe game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

It may not become objectively less punishing for the subjective reasons I listed, but to continue your analogy, if a player knows Umoria well enough, the only real threat of death is an off-screen AMHD breathing gas. From the perspective of a player like that, the game is far less lethal than it is to a newbie who is killed by a c, and the same applies in old school D&D. Though old school D&D does become objectively less punishing as well, for the systemic reasons I touched upon.

Not everybody will like every game style. It's perfectly reasonable to look at a playstyle and go "that's not for me". But that's a personal preference, not an objective assessment.

I wouldn't say it's more gamey, tho. I find the system tends to slip into the background more in old school games than in new. Also, don't buy into the "mother may I" arguments against old school gaming. They always come from critics on the outside looking in, or from experiences with bad DMs; it's not something people who are familiar with and play the games really experience.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2021, 10:12:17 AMIt may not become objectively less punishing for the subjective reasons I listed, but to continue your analogy, if a player knows Umoria well enough, the only real threat of death is an off-screen AMHD breathing gas.

That's called player skill. I don't know why you dislike calling it that, but as you become skilled in something, it becomes more routine and easier. Not the system itself becoming easier. You don't become more 'acclimated' to basketball.

QuoteI wouldn't say it's more gamey, tho.

In the sense the focus is on meta-system mastery. I guess most often it would be called....Video-gamey? But since it came before videogames, thats why I called it gamey. As you laid it out, the game is about learning all X things.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 10:29:15 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2021, 10:12:17 AMIt may not become objectively less punishing for the subjective reasons I listed, but to continue your analogy, if a player knows Umoria well enough, the only real threat of death is an off-screen AMHD breathing gas.

That's called player skill. I don't know why you dislike calling it that, but as you become skilled in something, it becomes more routine and easier. Not the system itself becoming easier. You don't become more 'acclimated' to basketball.

QuoteI wouldn't say it's more gamey, tho.

In the sense the focus is on meta-system mastery. I guess most often it would be called....Video-gamey? But since it came before videogames, thats why I called it gamey. As you laid it out, the game is about learning all X things.

Learning the pillar method is a player skill. Not save scumming isn't player skill, it's adopting a convention. Different things. That's why I don't like the term player skill, because it's misapplied.

It's not video gamey. I don't see how you're getting that.

I think at least some of what Pat is discussing here could better be called "life skills in the campaign setting".  There are often but not always analogous to real-life skills, but ultimately that is neither here nor there.  An example is learning to protect your fragile party members. That has real world directly analogous bits, such as "Put your heavy infantry in the middle front, not your lightly armored archers."  The presence of wizards and other fantastical elements twists the specifics around, but the principles remain the same.  Learning the principles is a form of "skill" in general, call it player skill if you want, but it is applicable to other things outside gaming, such as a study of military history.  Learning how to apply those principles to the specific rule set is the real player skill.  Learning how to apply those principles as your character in a setting is a somewhat different thing. 

The rules are fairly simple.  The implications of some of the rules on the setting are often more complicated.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 09:53:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2021, 09:07:19 AMThe game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.  The idea that people would want the game to hide that it is a game, with many of the same game conceits found in other games before it, would have been a surprising one at that time.

Long story short, 1E presumes explicitly that all participants will metagame (or just "game" - metagaming is recursive).  It encourages metagaming in all instances except where the megagaming is dishonorable, for lack of a better term.  Such as the famous example of reading the monster manual while fighting that particular monster in the game.

I would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG; the intros, the forwards, the sections on campaigns and running the game.  All the stuff that isn't game rules and terms, defined and mechanized.  If all of that makes you say "Yuck", you can run 1E but you'll be fighting against it every step of the way.  Some people do that very successfully because they still prefer its crunch math and flavor.  But best to do that with open eyes.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 28, 2021, 12:10:13 PM
I think at least some of what Pat is discussing here could better be called "life skills in the campaign setting".  There are often but not always analogous to real-life skills, but ultimately that is neither here nor there.  An example is learning to protect your fragile party members. That has real world directly analogous bits, such as "Put your heavy infantry in the middle front, not your lightly armored archers."  The presence of wizards and other fantastical elements twists the specifics around, but the principles remain the same.  Learning the principles is a form of "skill" in general, call it player skill if you want, but it is applicable to other things outside gaming, such as a study of military history.  Learning how to apply those principles to the specific rule set is the real player skill.  Learning how to apply those principles as your character in a setting is a somewhat different thing. 

The rules are fairly simple.  The implications of some of the rules on the setting are often more complicated.

Not quite. Let me see if I can explain it better.

Small unit tactics on a board is a skill. A real player skill. A skill wargamers have, and people new to roleplaying usually don't. Most of the original wave of D&D players had that skill, and didn't even have to think about it, because it was so deeply ingrained. It was how they approached analogous situations. Most of the second wave of roleplayers, the kids who picked up the game in the 1980s, lacked that skill.

But RPGs aren't wargames. It's in the name -- roleplaying game. (Yes, OD&D says miniatures on the cover, but that reinforces the shift, since it's missing in later editions.) The second wave of kids came infused with stories of epic heroes, like Lord of the Rings, or the serial and guaranteed victories of Saturday morning cartoons. Their expectations were based on those stories, so they came to D&D with the idea that they'd play singular role, who would have dramatic immunity, and be rewarded for being a hero. Old school D&D tends to dash those hopes, because it's not built around that. It's built around a wargaming chassis, base motives, and a certain degree of historical realism (though the caveats on the later is an entire essay on itself), and everything that implies. Yes, you can twist the game to be more forgiving and heroic, but you're fighting against the very structure of the game. At best, you can soften a few of the edges. A lot of people ended up playing hybrids, either half-adapting their expectations, or becoming frustrated.

And that's the problem. Expectations. Players from the 1980s until today come in with the wrong set. And that's not a matter of skill, it's something deeper. And that something is very hard to explain in text, because our expectations are largely unconscious. They're not a set of rules, that we can read and easily apply. They're how we think, and how we approach the world. As a result, players (including me) spent decades butting against the rules because our expectations didn't fit. That's why I say player skill is misapplied, because it's not a skill in any conventional sense. It's more akin to learning to appreciate romance novels, or sushi.

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 09:53:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2021, 09:07:19 AMThe game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.  The idea that people would want the game to hide that it is a game, with many of the same game conceits found in other games before it, would have been a surprising one at that time.

Long story short, 1E presumes explicitly that all participants will metagame (or just "game" - metagaming is recursive).  It encourages metagaming in all instances except where the megagaming is dishonorable, for lack of a better term.  Such as the famous example of reading the monster manual while fighting that particular monster in the game.

I would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG; the intros, the forwards, the sections on campaigns and running the game.  All the stuff that isn't game rules and terms, defined and mechanized.  If all of that makes you say "Yuck", you can run 1E but you'll be fighting against it every step of the way.  Some people do that very successfully because they still prefer its crunch math and flavor.  But best to do that with open eyes.

Very good post!  I heartily agree with everything above.

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PMI would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG

Which ones? Part of my frustrations with classic D&D is that there are like 6 different versions of it.
Im reading the premium version 1e and the verbiage is borderline chummy. Its like a pal talking to me. Its so...down to earth.

Regardless it very much seems like not my experience. It feels like something I can get better out of a videogame nowadays.

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PM
I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.

Yup https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=metagaming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmetagaming%3B%2Cc0 - looks like it appeared around 1995.

Doesn't 'metagaming' have roots (or at least a use) in the CCG culture?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 02:19:00 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PMI would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG

Which ones? Part of my frustrations with classic D&D is that there are like 6 different versions of it.
Im reading the premium version 1e and the verbiage is borderline chummy. Its like a pal talking to me. Its so...down to earth.

Regardless it very much seems like not my experience. It feels like something I can get better out of a videogame nowadays.

If you think what you are reading in the 1e DMG can be found in a video game, then your issue is reading comprehension, not combat math analysis.  At this point, based on what you've said in this thread, I don't think you are going to understand, because you don't want to.  There are none so blind as those who will not see...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 02:19:00 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PMI would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG

Which ones? Part of my frustrations with classic D&D is that there are like 6 different versions of it.
Im reading the premium version 1e and the verbiage is borderline chummy. Its like a pal talking to me. Its so...down to earth.

Regardless it very much seems like not my experience. It feels like something I can get better out of a videogame nowadays.

AD&D 1E PHB and DMG are the books where the designer explains the ideas behind the game the best, because in them he's talking to both OD&D enthusiasts and also D&D nay-sayers.  The holmes, B/X, BECMI books - the "just D&D" without the advanced - tell a presumably total neophyte reader a game process to apply at their table but don't really expound on the beliefs and motivations of Gygax as TSR-D&D's primary designer.  (I'm selectively avoiding all inferences to Arneson, who obviously co-designed D&D, the concept, and yet was not the primary determiner of what went into TSR D&D.)

AD&D 1E is not going to be the experience of anyone who came to D&D from the mid-80s on.  That's the point.  It's what I'm trying to convey.  You have to accept there are multitudes of mechanical widgets and terms you will recognize, and yet almost nothing about the "WHY" you've internalized over the years applies.  It completely rejects, conceptually, many many things that are now RPG commandments.

And to filter that back to the original post - that ends up bleeding heavily into the choice of math/algorithms/risk curves, which are very different than current RPGs as you've noticed (to your credit).

In the 1970s and 1980s, Metagaming was a publisher of wargames, specializing in the microgame format. RPGers might recognize some of them: Ogre, GEV, Melee, and Wizard.

Yep, that's where Steve Jackson started.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 27, 2021, 07:10:23 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 27, 2021, 07:01:19 PM
On OD&D Taise Dead is gained at level 6.

Tase Dead would be a cool spell.  How do you say "Don't tase me, bro!" in zombie?  My guess: "Uhhhuuggghhhuhhh!"

Get in an accident and then try typing with ruined hands and then get back to me on how funny it is.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on February 28, 2021, 01:43:49 AM
If you use 3d6 rather than a 20 sider saves seem to be less harsh and easier to make.

Um...

NO?

A d20 is a flat percentage. (5% ea)
3d6 is a bell curve with the results weighted around 10-11. (12.5) The ends being rare to happen (0.5%) And oh yeah it only goes to 18. Tough luck if you need a 19 or 20.

This comes up ALOT over on BGG in game design. You can not change a system geared around a single die roll to one with multiple without needing to overhaul the system to take into account the bell curve.

Or a quick example.
Lets say we have a system using a d6. with high rolls being better. But someone wants to change it to a system using 5d2. (Both of these can generate 6 numbers) What instead you will see is a huge spike at the middle and the edges high and low will be alot rarer.
Using anydice we get this for 5d2 rolled 6 times and converted to 1-6. 3, 3, 5, 4, 1, 3 (19). Vs this for 1d6 rolled 6 times. 2, 5, 3, 5, 6, 1.(22).

Easy mistake alot of folk make. And one people not trying to make conversions do alot as well too.

Gurps and Tunnels & Trolls are built around the curve. D&D is not.. other than chargen... usually.  8)

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 28, 2021, 04:44:15 PM
If you think what you are reading in the 1e DMG can be found in a video game, then your issue is reading comprehension, not combat math analysis.  At this point, based on what you've said in this thread, I don't think you are going to understand, because you don't want to.  There are none so blind as those who will not see...

I'm not interested in resource expenditure management-focused dungeon crawls. And quit lobbing bible verses at me, calling me ignorant.

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 05:04:28 PMAnd to filter that back to the original post - that ends up bleeding heavily into the choice of math/algorithms/risk curves, which are very different than current RPGs as you've noticed (to your credit).

Thanks, but in general the game appears to be not for me. I don't have a ton of fun running dungeon crawls.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2021, 01:52:08 AM
Thanks, but in general the game appears to be not for me. I don't have a ton of fun running dungeon crawls.

I was gathering that as the process went along, but figuring out what isn't for you is almost as good as finding something that is for you.  Both are better than thrashing with something that doesn't fit.

Quote from: EOTB on March 01, 2021, 03:30:58 AMI was gathering that as the process went along, but figuring out what isn't for you is almost as good as finding something that is for you.  Both are better than thrashing with something that doesn't fit.

Thanks man. I can imagine how it COULD be for somebody really.

And it has inspired me to be more lethal+ressurectiony in a game experiment I plan to try out.

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2021, 12:43:17 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 27, 2021, 07:10:23 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 27, 2021, 07:01:19 PM
On OD&D Taise Dead is gained at level 6.

Tase Dead would be a cool spell.  How do you say "Don't tase me, bro!" in zombie?  My guess: "Uhhhuuggghhhuhhh!"

Get in an accident and then try typing with ruined hands and then get back to me on how funny it is.

That's a hell of an accident that keeps you from proof-reading, too.  It's a typo, that happened to be funny.  We've all done it.  So get over yourself.  If you don't want people to lump everyone with a handicap in the SJW box, stop acting like them (omg, someone made fun of something!  You can't make fun of me, I'm handicapped!).  You gonna pull a race card next?

Quote from: S'mon on February 28, 2021, 03:43:20 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PM
I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.

Yup https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=metagaming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmetagaming%3B%2Cc0 - looks like it appeared around 1995.

Also look at "metagame": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=metagame%2Cmetagaming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=1 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=metagame%2Cmetagaming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=1) It's a much more common word than "metagaming", and actually had a massive spike in 1967-68, not very long before OD&D appeared. I'm wondering what caused it, and in what context the word was being used at the time.

For AD&D, the combat math is set up so that offense scales much higher than defense does in physical combat. Both offense and defense improve with better gear but the THAC0 adjustment improves offense on top of that. AD&D obfuscates that with the descending AC and THAC0 charts where more recent games simplify the concept with ascending AC and Base Attack Bonus. I don't know if the obfuscation was intentional or merely a side effect of being the first, I'm sure others could answer that better than I. Magic scales in the opposite way, with easier saves and resistant monsters. Does it make complete sense, with every variable having been carefully considered? No. It came out over 40 years ago.

In the late 70's, the Trans Am was a highly desirable V-8 muscle car. Basic 4 cylinder 2020 model cars like a  Honda Civic are faster and use a lot less gas as the engineering has improved. But if Mr. Miyagi offered me a choice between those, I'd definitely take the Trans Am. The nostalgia is a big part of the appeal, and so is the style/sensibility.

You mention video games. As a counterpoint, I see a lot of nostalgia for the old, NES era games. Newly created ones like Shovel Knight are very popular, and there is a whole cottage industry around using old consoles and CRT televisions, emulators and the like. And I just don't get it. I played those NES games when they were new and its incomprehensible to me that someone might prefer those to newer games that are exponentially better in every way. But people like them and they aren't "wrong" for that.

The point is, those OSR rulesets don't have to be "for" you. And neither do the modern systems if they don't offer everything you want. Just pick and choose the parts you want. For myself I like the OSR atmosphere and sensibilities, and like the actual mechabnics less. I've run quite a lot of DCC, oD&D, OSR adventures using modern rulesets like 5E and PF2. I liked the rules for those systems but liked the adventures a lot less. Figure out what appeals to your sensibilities, spend some time understanding that system, and then run with it. Nearly anything can be converted.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 11:17:53 AMYou mention video games. As a counterpoint, I see a lot of nostalgia for the old, NES era games. Newly created ones like Shovel Knight are very popular, and there is a whole cottage industry around using old consoles and CRT televisions, emulators and the like. And I just don't get it.

I think part of the cottage industry is to do with media preservation or emulation. I feel with videogames it's more like liking black and white films over color ones and there can be objective benefits to either style. Also Shovel Knight is a genuinly fantastic series of games, and I have no nostalgia for the NES.

Outside of that, thanks for the general overview of the stuff.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 11:17:53 AM
For AD&D, the combat math is set up so that offense scales much higher than defense does in physical combat. Both offense and defense improve with better gear but the THAC0 adjustment improves offense on top of that. AD&D obfuscates that with the descending AC and THAC0 charts where more recent games simplify the concept with ascending AC and Base Attack Bonus. I don't know if the obfuscation was intentional or merely a side effect of being the first, I'm sure others could answer that better than I. Magic scales in the opposite way, with easier saves and resistant monsters. Does it make complete sense, with every variable having been carefully considered? No. It came out over 40 years ago.

In the late 70's, the Trans Am was a highly desirable V-8 muscle car. Basic 4 cylinder 2020 model cars like a  Honda Civic are faster and use a lot less gas as the engineering has improved. But if Mr. Miyagi offered me a choice between those, I'd definitely take the Trans Am. The nostalgia is a big part of the appeal, and so is the style/sensibility.

That's a false comparison. Games don't improve like the engineering in technology. They're more like fashion, with popular styles changing over time.

Also, everyone knows that to hit rolls scale faster than AC. It's trivially obvious if you look at the rules, and it's blindingly obvious if you play the game. It's also incorrect to say offense scales faster than defense, because the to hit roll isn't a summary of offensive power, even if we just look at physical combat and ignore spells. Offense is a product of your ability to hit, and the damage you deal out. And the damage dealt out scales more slowly than hit points.

What happens is the game feels very swingy at low levels. Characters have about a 50% chance to hit an unarmored foe, and maybe a 5-10% chance to hit a heavily armored foe, and a single hit is frequently enough to kill. SWISH SWISH SWISH SWISH HIT I WIN! The first shift as characters advance is PCs get better armor, which moves them from the lightly armored to heavily armored category, making fights much more survivable. Hit points also improve rapidly -- the difference between 1d8 and 2d8 hp is a 100% improvement, while the difference between 8d8 and 9d8 hp is only 12.5%. For simplicity, I'm ignoring the double bonus of magical armor (armor + shield) vs. the single bonus of weapons like a sword. But by name level, characters are hitting much more frequently, but doing comparably less damage. This makes combat more predictable, and also a lot safer. SWISH HIT HIT HIT SWISH HIT HIT I WIN! Hit points also become a lot more useful for assessing risk, because it's less dependent on a single luck roll.

The game designers were clearly aware of this. Gygax not only was obsessed with different systems (see his publications in various wargame journals, prior to OD&D), but it's worth remembering how intensely the early RPGs were played. Most gamers today are lucky to get a handful of friends together for a few hours, once a week or once a month. The Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns had dozens of players, who played multiple times per week, into the wee hours of the morning. Old versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PM
The game designers were clearly aware of this. Gygax not only was obsessed with different systems (see his publications in various wargame journals, prior to OD&D), but it's worth remembering how intensely the early RPGs were played. Most gamers today are lucky to get a handful of friends together for a few hours, once a week or once a month. The Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns had dozens of players, who played multiple times per week, into the wee hours of the morning. Old versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

I think this is often overlooked. As Pat says, the mechanics published emerged from tons of playing, constantly, with lots of people. The rules may not be super clearly written (I prefer OSRIC for figuring out the rules) but there is a huge amount of experiential context in the 1e books. Some of the rules seem weird, counter-intuitive etc, but at the table, with the right frame of mind they can really sing -- and the mechanics fade into the background. The focus stays on: "What do you do?" Then the GM adjudicates what happens.

I ran a 1e campaign for multiple years after 3.5 (and have revisited the system a few times since), running as "by the book as I could manage" but I've still picked up a lot of interesting context from this thread. I agree that while it certainly feels like a game -- newer versions of D&D feel more "gamey" to me then most OSR games. The later are more organic, and seem to have

The actually playing thing is so important. I think very few games these days get the kind of playtime that D&D did at it's genesis. Some games seemed to be released with no appreciable play at all. This I can't fathom. I certainly didn't get the kind of constant multiple games a week, with large player base when I was working on Simple Superheroes (https://composedreamgames.com/pages/simplesuperheroes.php) that D&D managed. But I did run it for 5 years, with multiple campaigns and different players, and ran it over 200 times at conventions with players making characters before I even ran the kickstarter.

Spending a lot of time playing makes the resulting game design . . . perhaps not complete, but sufficient or even ample for the needs of actual play.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Do you play cards? What is your opinion of Texas Hold Em? Just a modern preference or an improvement on the game?

I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Do you play cards? What is your opinion of Texas Hold Em? Just a modern preference or an improvement on the game?

I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

THAC0 was perfectly comprehensible and followed a simple pattern.  No one I played with ever looked at a chart.  And the presentation may or may not be a good thing. 

Texas Hold-Em as a game offers more rounds of betting per hand, which leads to big pots and more drama.  It also leads to quick exits.  This is great for a casino or TV.  Five card stud or draw was much lower stakes, so it was much better for people who were playing the game to pass the time.  Neither is an "improvement" over the other.  They serve different purposes.

Ideas may or may not be "improved" when the change.  Often they change because of changed purpose or circumstance.  As an adult with a job, I don't have as much time for worldbuilding as I did as a teenager, so I use more prepared modules and purchased material.  Is that an "improvement"?  Doubtful.  But it is a change in the hobby driven by changing circumstance.

The fallacy of "progressivism" (and it's precursor "Whig history") is humorous as best, and dangerous at worst, when it prompts people to assume that all change is good.  A wise man once suggested the people understand the purpose of a fence before they tear it down.  We have far too many fools in the modern world who can't even by bothered to try to understand...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 01, 2021, 06:23:23 PM
THAC0 was perfectly comprehensible and followed a simple pattern.  No one I played with ever looked at a chart.

I cannot fathom the levels of stupidity necessary to not be able to understand ThAC0 - AC = Target Number.

People these days talk about ThAC0 as if it's a fucking integral equation. Oh my God, you need to deal with negative numbers on occasion? The horror...the horror...

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Do you play cards? What is your opinion of Texas Hold Em? Just a modern preference or an improvement on the game?

I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

I played a lot of war games when I was a kid so a chart just seemed obvious. I mean AD&D was downright simplistic compared to Starfleet Battles, so it never occurred to me that the chart or THAC0 was sub-optimal. Then again, optimal is sort of a misnomer; subtracting isn't any harder than adding unless you're just lazy, and the chart requires absolutely zero math and allows for extreme edge cases that d20 doesn't. d20 is probably easier I'd say, but you lose something that the chart provides. It's a trade off.

EDIT: I'll also point out using a chart results in stuff like Arms Law, and my junior high self thought that was the most badass thing ever to incorporate into my D&D game. You're not going to get that sort of coolness with d20 without a lot of kludges.

It's not that it's a horror; it's just inefficient compared to the d20+mod vs. TN approach.

My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time. It also discounts various modifiers to the roll.

Rather the way it was always used in my experience was THAC0 - (roll+modifiers) = AC hit. It's subtle, but the main difference is that the player has to due the subtraction and addition operations every time until the AC is determined rather than only once.

That's basically the same as Roll + modifier = AC hit... except that pretty much everyone adds faster than they subtract.

Also superior is using the same Roll+Mod vs. TN to determine skill use instead of Roll + Mod (where +s are bad and -s good) to get less than or equal to ability score with closest to without going over the winner in an opposed contest (i.e. another math operation vs. just "highest check result wins" in modern d20).

Old school saves are basically the d20 system resolution system (roll + mods vs. TN), but that just means that you used a d20 check in three very different ways in AD&D for no particular reason since they all ultimately worked out to the same flat increments of 5% that any d20 roll did.

Why not design skills and saves around the same THAC0 mechanic?

Frankly, d20+mod vs. TN as a universal system for attacks, saves and skills IS as close to an objective design improvement to a system as you'll ever find. One can argue the implementation of the numbers in 3e is bad relative to the results in AD&D, but as a basic system it's just flat out better and THAC0, skills and saves could all easily be adapted to it with the exact same odds, but clearer implementation.

Ex. Change the save chart to bonuses with a default TN of 20. If you needed a 14+ to save before it'd be +6 to save vs breath weapons. Instead of penalties to saves for certain creatures, the TN could just be changed (i.e. instead of "save vs breath with a -4 penalty" it's "save vs breath TN 24").

This has the same results in terms of odds, but because it's consistent across all actions that use a d20, it's easier to remember.

I won't go so far as to suggest that there would be zero difference between a 2-in-6 chance to detect secret doors and a d20 check. But I will point out that a +6 to detect secret doors vs. TN 20 will be within 2% of the 2-in-6 check result; not perfect, but close enough to see why a system might replace the 2-in-6 with a d20 check to streamline the system without losing much in the process.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 02:34:30 PMOld versions of D&D can be criticized for many things, but unconsidered design and a lack of playtesting are not among them.

All right. Why is a THAC0 chart and descending AC better than (or equal to) ascending AC and a flat bonus to hit, using the exact same numbers but presenting them in a different way?

How long did it take for you to figure out how those numbers work and stop using the chart? Why didn't they?

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
I'm not trying to rip into GG or anyone, I just think its natural for any idea to be improved upon over time.

How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 07:50:51 PM
My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time. It also discounts various modifiers to the roll.

Rather the way it was always used in my experience was THAC0 - (roll+modifiers) = AC hit. It's subtle, but the main difference is that the player has to due the subtraction and addition operations every time until the AC is determined rather than only once.

That's basically the same as Roll + modifier = AC hit... except that pretty much everyone adds faster than they subtract.

I will say that the way THAC0 was explained in the 2nd edition Player's Handbook was terrible. They never clearly stated the operation to be performed, instead they just assumed you knew the right way to combine the numbers. Which led to a lot of confusion because a lot of people were never sure when they should add, and when they should subtract, and a clearer set of rules probably would have reduced (though not eliminated) that. Perhaps more interestingly, different tables ended up using slightly different but equivalent operations. Do you subtract from THAC0, or add to the roll? The advantage of subtracting is you can precalculate a lot more, but adding is more intuitive for more people. Another is the one you just described: I.e. whether the DM called out the AC (the method we used), or whether the player rolled and said the best AC they could hit. I've seen a lot of discussion propounding the merits of keeping AC hidden, but I don't think it's very important -- if you're paying attention, after an encounter or two, you should have a good idea of a monster's AC anyway.

There were dozens of game systems that didn't use THACO in 1983.  People didn't need to wait for Jonathon Tweet on that score.

Quote from: EOTB on March 01, 2021, 10:26:01 PM
There were dozens of game systems that didn't use THACO in 1983.  People didn't need to wait for Jonathon Tweet on that score.

Thats true, I personally invented BaB years before Mr Tweet took my idea and ran with it.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM
How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

They haven't! Chess has been around quite a bit longer than AD&D has, and has changed quite a bit in that time. You might say it improved over time, or you might prefer an older version where the bishop moves differently. Maybe the perfect RPG will evolve in a few thousand years and reach a similar status.

I've played  and ran hundreds of games of AD&D and understand it perfectly. But its still just a fun game I played as a teen, and now there are other games. Its not a religious text to me or a part of my identity. Mildly suggesting that the combat resolution is easier with the same results using a different method is not what I'd call impugning the system.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 01, 2021, 06:23:23 PM

The fallacy of "progressivism" (and it's precursor "Whig history") is humorous as best, and dangerous at worst, when it prompts people to assume that all change is good.  A wise man once suggested the people understand the purpose of a fence before they tear it down.  We have far too many fools in the modern world who can't even by bothered to try to understand...

Is this a joke? Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics use the roll+bonus vs ascending AC method. Are the creators also "dangerous progressives?"

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 10:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM
How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

They haven't! Chess has been around quite a bit longer than AD&D has, and has changed quite a bit in that time. You might say it improved over time, or you might prefer an older version where the bishop moves differently. Maybe the perfect RPG will evolve in a few thousand years and reach a similar status.

I've played  and ran hundreds of games of AD&D and understand it perfectly. But its still just a fun game I played as a teen, and now there are other games. Its not a religious text to me or a part of my identity. Mildly suggesting that the combat resolution is easier with the same results using a different method is not what I'd call impugning the system.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 01, 2021, 06:23:23 PM

The fallacy of "progressivism" (and it's precursor "Whig history") is humorous as best, and dangerous at worst, when it prompts people to assume that all change is good.  A wise man once suggested the people understand the purpose of a fence before they tear it down.  We have far too many fools in the modern world who can't even by bothered to try to understand...

Is this a joke? Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics use the roll+bonus vs ascending AC method. Are the creators also "dangerous progressives?"

No, because I've never heard them saying their products are inherently better because they are newer.  Which was the explicit argument above, and the basis of my objection.  Apparently "newer" forms of reading comprehension are not superior to the old kind...

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

The 1e DMG has a "To hit A.C. 0" column for all of the monster listings - Appendix E. starting on page 196. So, it's been there since 1979.

I like THAC0 - and the combat charts a lot. Smaller numbers. Charts if you prefer it. If I don't want to tell the players a monsters AC -- they just tell me what they rolled and I check to see if they hit, which is very fast. Player's not knowing is actually the standard assumption in the rules.
Typically though, I'll just tell players the AC, and they can subtract a small number from their THAC0 and know what they need to roll for the rest of the fight: You run into a group of 6 gnolls, their AC is 5. Player - I have a THAC0 of 17, so 17-5 = 12, I need a 12 to hit during this fight.
Done.

Quote from: Conanist on March 01, 2021, 10:36:33 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM
How much have chess and go improved over the last 30 years? Someone compared game design to the dramatic arc of technological improvement, which is what I disputed.

They haven't! Chess has been around quite a bit longer than AD&D has, and has changed quite a bit in that time. You might say it improved over time, or you might prefer an older version where the bishop moves differently. Maybe the perfect RPG will evolve in a few thousand years and reach a similar status.

I've played  and ran hundreds of games of AD&D and understand it perfectly. But its still just a fun game I played as a teen, and now there are other games. Its not a religious text to me or a part of my identity. Mildly suggesting that the combat resolution is easier with the same results using a different method is not what I'd call impugning the system.

You can't have both. Is chess a game where styles have changed over time and both new and old versions are valid, or is it a clear example of pseudo-technological progress, which has advanced into a perfect form?

I think the latter argument is absurd. Eirikrautha provided another good counter example, responding to your question about Texas Hold 'Em by pointing out that the new versions are adapted specifically to a new environment, rather than being objectively better or worse. As styles and preferences change, so do the games we like to play. There may be better and worse games, but assuming there's a steady upward progress and all that's old is outdated and all that's new is more advanced is simply not how it works. Games are fads or fashions, not a steady progression into ever better forms.

And regardless of your gaming history, you made a post full of mistaken assumptions. It's the same kind of superficial dismissal that comes up a lot, so it's better to correct it quickly. It's more interesting to talk about actual features.

Quote from: Thondor on March 01, 2021, 11:48:13 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

The 1e DMG has a "To hit A.C. 0" column for all of the monster listings - Appendix E. starting on page 196. So, it's been there since 1979.

That's an interesting precursor, but it's just a column title, not a system. The combat resolution system called THAC0 wasn't described until second edition. The first major place it appeared was the 2e Player's Handbook, though it's possible a preview might have appeared in a module during the 1e/2e transition period (I don't remember).

Quote from: Thondor on March 01, 2021, 11:48:13 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2021, 07:53:06 PM

Small numbers. Ascending AC uses two-digit numbers, which usability studies have shown are both harder to add and harder to compare than single digit numbers. Descending AC use single digit numbers, which are superior from a usability standpoint. The downside of THAC0 is it uses negative numbers, which are even harder to work with.

Except that's irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, negative numbers almost never came up in the original game. It was the expansion of the game in the Supplements and into AD&D that cause it to become more frequent, and potentially more of a problem. Also, AC was armor class, not armor rating. As in 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class, and so on. Ordinal, not cardinal. Not something you really added or subtracted, in the original game. But the bigger reason? No version of D&D used THAC0, until 2nd edition, so the tradeoffs of THAC0 are completely irrelevant. It's not the system used.

The method used in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e is a chart lookup. The only math involved is a comparison, which is literally the easiest operation to perform. You skim the row, find the right column, roll. Was it higher? You hit. And you didn't even need to find the right row, most of the time, because it was trivial to copy the ACs from -4 to to 9 or 10 on character sheet, then write the number you need to hit below them. Then all you have to do is run your eye down a line, find the AC, and roll. The attempt to turn it into a formula, whether it was THAC0, the d20 system, or more modern variants like Target 20, was a step back in usability.

If you want to impugn a design, it helps to have a passing familiarity with it.

The 1e DMG has a "To hit A.C. 0" column for all of the monster listings - Appendix E. starting on page 196. So, it's been there since 1979.

I like THAC0 - and the combat charts a lot. Smaller numbers. Charts if you prefer it. If I don't want to tell the players a monsters AC -- they just tell me what they rolled and I check to see if they hit, which is very fast. Player's not knowing is actually the standard assumption in the rules.
Typically though, I'll just tell players the AC, and they can subtract a small number from their THAC0 and know what they need to roll for the rest of the fight: You run into a group of 6 gnolls, their AC is 5. Player - I have a THAC0 of 17, so 17-5 = 12, I need a 12 to hit during this fight.
Done.

If you have a Bab of +3 and are attacking someone with an AC of 15 then you need to roll (15-3) a 12 to hit.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2021, 02:19:00 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PMI would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG

Which ones? Part of my frustrations with classic D&D is that there are like 6 different versions of it.
Im reading the premium version 1e and the verbiage is borderline chummy. Its like a pal talking to me. Its so...down to earth.

Regardless it very much seems like not my experience. It feels like something I can get better out of a videogame nowadays.

So I started in the late 70s with the Holmes edition of Basic D&D and transitioned to AD&D from when it was first released. I quickly gravitated to refereeing most of the time. In my neck of the woods, rural NW PA, I was known as the referee who let players trash his setting. I didn't have an issue with player trying to become kings,  and magnates. And I did enough wargaming and read enough history prior to starting playing D&D to make it interesting despite being a high school student.

I am also partially deaf and to help keep on top of trying to understand what a half dozen players liked to do I used miniatures.  Also because of this I was pretty a RAW referee when it came to mechanics. But only when it came to adjudicating specific things the players did.  Because of my focus on letting players "trash" my setting I had my own opinions on how the world around the PCs ought to operate or not operate. If wandering monsters appeared because it made sense in terms of the location not because the DMG said so for dungeons.

Eventually because many parts of AD&D combat where written in a incomprehensive manner I said fuck it to RAW as far how initiative and character actions worked in AD&D combat. Instead I said that character can do a half-move and attack (or cast a spell). You can sub in other things for either but you only get one attack action. Also because I used minis positioning mattered.

From 1979 (the release of the DMG) to 1985, I ran the Wilderlands of High Fantasy using AD&D 1e. When a campaign finished I used what the PCs did as part of the background for the next campaign. By the time I went to college I done this successfully about a half of dozen times. This continued for a bit with AD&D until I discovered Fantasy Hero. I switched not because there was anything particularly wrong with AD&D but rather when it came to doing things outside of combat Fantasy Hero with skills allowed character to be better at those things in a formal way compared to the adhoc methods I was using up to that time.

And doing things outside of combat and spellcasting were just as important because that what needed to make trashing the setting interesting and challenging.

For next two decades I played Fantasy Hero and then switched to GURPS. When I got into writing and publishing I wasn't particularly interested in writing my own D&D rules. Nor I was interested in playing around with D&D 3.0. Instead I was interesting writing fantasy setting material and opted for a stat-lite approach. Figuring that I write there was a troll in a locale that you plug whatever is a troll in your edition or system.

I also wrote about how I handled campaign. While I may have changed system I evolved how I ran things. The heart of what I do today can found in the campaigns I ran in 1980.

What is that? You can find the short version in my Blackmarsh setting.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/blackmarsh_srd.zip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adventuring Advice
This format is designed to make it easy to referee players as they explore the world.  With a list of locales, it is easy for the referee to determine what is over the next hill and what possible challenges the players might face.  In addition, since the players can largely be left to their own devices, this format allows the referee more time to focus on the core adventures in his campaign.

Not every hex location has a description, and the background information is only meant to be a loose framework.  Referees are encouraged to add material and make the setting unique to their campaigns.

It is suggested that to get maximum use of this setting that the referee look over the locales, then chose the ones that best suit the campaign.  Note the NPCs and their circumstances.  Develop a timeline of events if the characters are not involved.  Detail important locales and add new ones of your own design.  Do the same for the NPCs, and make notes on their motivations and personalities.

After each session of the campaign, review what the players did.  Look at your original timeline of events, see what impact their actions had, and make the needed changes.  Sometimes the players' actions will lead to a new and unexpected chain of events. 

The creativity of the referee comes by not forcing his players to follow a predetermined story, but to develop new and interesting consequences based on the players' actions.  Use the NPC's motivations and personalities to decide which consequences are the most likely and pick the most interesting.

The result is a campaign where the players feel they are forging their character's destiny within a living, breathing world.  It will not only be fun and adventurous, but also filled with surprises.  Consequences will accumulate and spin the campaign into unexpected directions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But after my first couple of projects I found out that I really need to get back into playing D&D to make the most of what I was trying to do. It by far the biggest audience to share things with even when one stuck with the classic editions. Thinks to the folks writing about how they used the classic editions, the forums and the research into the origins of our hobby and D&D. I had a lot more to go on than I did as high schooler circa 1980.

So I picked up with the house rules I finished AD&D with. Applied them to OD&D, and then added somethings to reflect that fact that I am still letting players trash my setting and that doing things outside of combat and spellcasting will still important. That players like being better at some of these things as their character.

The result was basically my Majestic Wilderlands supplement and slightly later a complete set of rules. I wrote a free basic version here.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

Then recently did a complete version and published it.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/337515/The-Majestic-Fantasy-RPG-Basic-Rules

So what the trick? It not in how I did it, or EOTB or how anybody else recommend handling in this thread. It all of our suggestion and more.

The trick is to figure out what kind of campaign you want to run. What your focus, what important to have, and above all what fun.
Then after that figure out what rules you need to handle it.

Of course it confusing at first which is why I recommend pick any edition and run a short campaign with RAW. Then add something. Then run that. Keep looping through successive campaign picking a little of that and a little of this until you have something you like.

I started with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry because I knew out of all the classic editions that it had the flattest power curve having played it RAW (more or less, with OD&D being what it is, you have to pick and choose what interpretations to use for specific sections.) From my experience with AD&D, having dealt with Unearthed Arcana when it was first released. The difference between the creatures in the Monster Manual versus the Monster Manual II. I had a sense the PC inflation that was caused by various additions to D&D starting with the Greyhawk supplement.

Added to this is the influence of Judges Guild namely that every character had a level. Level wasn't a mark of a hero but rather that of experience.
In my Majestic Fantasy Rules I talk about it.

QuoteExperience
A character's Class Level is representative of the character's life experience. In general, all characters have a class and level. In some cases, hit dice and notes on special abilities may act as a shorthand when the full details of class and level are not needed.

Levels 1 to 2 are considered to be trained apprentices. Characters are nominally capable of doing the job of their class or profession, but still have more to learn before being considered a veteran or fully trained.

Level 3 is where characters are considered professionals within their class or profession. In a guild, this is the point where a character becomes a journeyman and is allowed to take employment with any master willing to hire them. Burglars will now be respected enough to run their own heists. Clerics become full priests of their religion, allowed to officiate at services and ceremonies. Fighters receive their first minor command. Finally, Magic-Users are considered fully trained and ready to make their own way in the world.

Level 6 is where characters are considered to have mastered their profession and ready to assume various leadership roles. In guilds, the character would be considered a master of their profession. Burglars gain control over the jobs and heists done in a neighborhood. A Cleric becomes eligible to be a bishop, responsible for the flock of a small region or city. Fighters start to independently command troops as a captain. Finally, Magic-Users start to take on apprentices to train and to assist them in their expanding array of research.

and so on. And keep in mind that Hit Dice align in part with character level. It not exact but in general a HD 3 creature is as dangerous or tough as a level 3 character.  In my setting a HD 12 creature is something what a character with Olympic caliber of skill would be needed to take on. Which I consider to be roughly 12th level.

I talk about how to make rulings using the classic editions. Along with how I run campaigns and bring the world outside the dungeon to life.

If you like I will be glad to comp you a PDF copy. Just send me a PM. I think you will find the two chapters of advice useful regardless of what edition you settle on.

Hope this helps.

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 12:19:53 AM
If you have a Bab of +3 and are attacking someone with an AC of 15 then you need to roll (15-3) a 12 to hit.

Yeah I always do that calculation when running tabletop. So in effect BAB & THAC0 work out exactly the same in complexity for me.

I prefer d20 + mod vs TN as the base mechanic because it is easier to explain.  I run into a lot of players that want to understand how it is supposed to work.  This is in contrast to my high school days using Basic/Expert and AD&D where I had two kinds of players:

- Those good at math and systems, such that it didn't matter what system we used.
- Those that freaked out about "Math!" in a game if it used any calculations at all.

The chart written on your own (homemade) character sheet worked very well for those players.  The first group internalized the math almost immediately.  The chart worked as well as anything else, as they quickly memorized it.  For the second group, it was the difference in playing and not playing.  Moreover, we had a few that stuck with it long enough that they also internalized the math of the chart, which made "Math!" less threatening to them.  In once case, a math teacher shared with me that they had noticed an improvement in the classroom in that regard.  No, AD&D didn't help the kid do better Algebra.  It helped him quit wasting a lot of energy worrying about it so that he could get  on with the job of learning it.

Since, I've run into three players with this "Math!" fear.  Two dropped out fairly quickly, as the game just wasn't for them for many reasons.  For the other, I wrote out a little chart of the d20 + Mod vs TN numbers they were likely to encounter ... :D

I also think that d20+mod vs. TN can get within 2.5% of the probability of any other single die check and any multiple die check with a fixed target number and no margin of success element is another part of why it was able to so easily replace a lot the earlier D&D mechanics.

It's not identical to those other polyhedrals, but within 2% on a flat distribution is close enough for all but the most math focused.

Offhand, the only mechanic I can even think of in TSR-era D&D that a d20+mod check couldn't emulate well is the Reaction Roll (which probably explains all the issues with the Diplomacy skill which was the analogue in all the WotC editions).

5e also seems to have finally figured out to that by keeping the target numbers low enough, you can also keep the modifiers mostly in the single digits for easy math.

This was a lesson my own group learned midway through 4E when we implemented a house rule to remove the per level scaling to attack bonuses and defenses because, regardless of the current modifier/DC, the actual result needed on the die didn't really change (and deviations from the die result needed was entirely the result of relative level).

This worked its way into my own system where attack bonuses and defenses stayed virtually fixed (about +2 over the course of 15 levels), but damage/hit points scaled linearly.

You get the same probabilities with +27 vs. AC 36 and +7 vs. AC 16, but with the latter the math is, at worst, single digits and sometimes doesn't even require addition at all (i.e. you roll a 16 or better on the die you don't even bother adding the bonus because the die is already beating the AC). Monsters also stay threats just by adding more of them to scale up the group's damage and hit points.

The point though is that, with a softcap of 21 on defenses (hardcap is 24 with min-maxing that will gimp you in other ways) and a softcap of +9 to attack rolls (hardcap is +13 if you're willing to be gimped elsewhere) and most things being more like 15-18 and +5-8... the d20+mods vs. TN provides good results without any complex math.

So much so that I think it is possible to argue that it is objectively superior as a mechanic to both the simultaneous use of multiple unconnected d20-based resolution systems found in TSR-era D&D (i.e. use THAC0/tables for attacks + roll vs. TN for saves + roll as close to attribute without going over for skills) and to 3e/4E's high double digit modifiers and DCs math.

This isn't to say that one can't appreciate the craftsmanship that went into a Model-A pickup truck; but to argue that the Model-A is mechanically superior to say, a 2003 Ford F-150 pickup, would be ludicrous (even the "easier to repair" argument fails as almost any part you need for a Model-A has to be custom fabricated by a small number of specialty manufacturers... as I've learned trying to source parts for my Dad's Model-A).

My Dad loves taking country drives (or appearing in local parades) with his Model-A, but he doesn't even think about trying to do any serious work with it; that's what the F-150 is for.

I feel the same about game mechanics. Using the old charts and clunky mechanics are great for a trip down memory lane, but they're not remotely what I'd choose for a regular campaign when there are other mechanics that do the job in ways that are much easier for players like my niece and godkods to grok.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2021, 12:33:46 PM
I also think that d20+mod vs. TN can get within 2.5% of the probability of any other single die check and any multiple die check with a fixed target number and no margin of success element is another part of why it was able to so easily replace a lot the earlier D&D mechanics.

In the various classic edit the vast majority of other checks are percentile and the modifiers are in +5% increments.

So in  my Majestic Fantasy rules I converted them all to various flavors of 1d20 roll high. A 70% magic resistance became a 1d20 roll + 14. If the roll was 21 or higher the spell was resisted.

If anybody interested in the interplay of AC, Hit points, damages, and bonus to hit. I created a D&D combat simulator along with instruction on how to use it with any edition.

https://www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/

For example +1 to hit difference between to fighters with the same AC and same HP and the same damage will transform a 50%-50% fight to a 60%-40%. The same for +1 AC

However +1 damage takes the odds to 71% to 29% in favor of the fighter with the +1 damage bonus. If you just increase # of attacks to 2 from 3/2 then the odds shift to 81% to 19%.

For managing a campaign this simulator is worse than useless it is deceptive as it doesn't account for circumstances. Combat is not just two opponents whacking away at each other.

It is useful if you into trying to muck around the system and want to get a sense of scale and the relative impact of doing X over Y in the mechanics.

One thing this convinced me to do is follow 5e's lead in capping magic item bonus at +3 instead of the traditional +5.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 07:50:51 PM
My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time.

It's interesting to me that this little quirk in how we played makes such a large impact on the amount of math employed during the game.

Seems to me a good reason in itself to reveal the target AC to players; for me I guess it outweighs the ... increased suspense I guess? I never really got the benefit of hiding the AC, just the discomfort. It never felt particularly realistic that a trained warrior couldn't estimate the target's AC beforehand -- they can see where they need to put the blade and how difficult it will be. And I would think that same fighter could pinpoint the AC, including magical bonuses, after the first attack (when their blow unexpectedly deflects off the soft-looking flesh, etc.)

Quote from: Zalman on March 02, 2021, 01:36:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 07:50:51 PM
My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time.

It's interesting to me that this little quirk in how we played makes such a large impact on the amount of math employed during the game.

Seems to me a good reason in itself to reveal the target AC to players; for me I guess it outweighs the ... increased suspense I guess? I never really got the benefit of hiding the AC, just the discomfort. It never felt particularly realistic that a trained warrior couldn't estimate the target's AC beforehand -- they can see where they need to put the blade and how difficult it will be. And I would think that same fighter could pinpoint the AC, including magical bonuses, after the first attack (when their blow unexpectedly deflects off the soft-looking flesh, etc.)

I think in most fights, 80% of the utility of the players not knowing the exact AC all happens in the first round. 

Players collectively:  We got an 8, 11, 15, 17, 19,  and 22 on our hits. 

GM:  The last one hit.
Players:  Yikes!

or GM: All but the first hit.
Players:  Piece of cake!

or GM:  Three hits.
Players:  About what we expected, maybe a little tougher.

There's a little remaining marginal utility in the exact number being hidden in those scenarios and a few others, but it really is quite marginal. I guess if none of the hits connect, the players knowing that it is higher than 22 but not how much higher could affect their immediate plans.  But it is already clear that "Yikes" is the operative expression. :D

Quote from: S'mon on March 02, 2021, 05:21:27 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on March 02, 2021, 12:19:53 AM
If you have a Bab of +3 and are attacking someone with an AC of 15 then you need to roll (15-3) a 12 to hit.

Yeah I always do that calculation when running tabletop. So in effect BAB & THAC0 work out exactly the same in complexity for me.

Thats maths for you.  Always calculating to the same value.

Quote from: estar on March 02, 2021, 01:07:37 AM
I also wrote about how I handled campaign. While I may have changed system I evolved how I ran things. The heart of what I do today can found in the campaigns I ran in 1980.

What is that? You can find the short version in my Blackmarsh setting.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/blackmarsh_srd.zip

Great post, and I had to say . . . thanks for Blackmarsh! I haven't actually used it at the table, but it's an inspiring document and led me to do more hexmapping of my own campaign worlds. It's a great example of how I think a campaign setting should be.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 02, 2021, 01:58:49 PM

Quote from: Zalman on March 02, 2021, 01:36:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 07:50:51 PM
My experience with THAC0 was not THACO - AC = TN; because that would require you to KNOW the AC ahead of time.

It's interesting to me that this little quirk in how we played makes such a large impact on the amount of math employed during the game.

Seems to me a good reason in itself to reveal the target AC to players; for me I guess it outweighs the ... increased suspense I guess? I never really got the benefit of hiding the AC, just the discomfort. It never felt particularly realistic that a trained warrior couldn't estimate the target's AC beforehand -- they can see where they need to put the blade and how difficult it will be. And I would think that same fighter could pinpoint the AC, including magical bonuses, after the first attack (when their blow unexpectedly deflects off the soft-looking flesh, etc.)

I think in most fights, 80% of the utility of the players not knowing the exact AC all happens in the first round. 

Players collectively:  We got an 8, 11, 15, 17, 19,  and 22 on our hits. 

GM:  The last one hit.
Players:  Yikes!

or GM: All but the first hit.
Players:  Piece of cake!

or GM:  Three hits.
Players:  About what we expected, maybe a little tougher.

There's a little remaining marginal utility in the exact number being hidden in those scenarios and a few others, but it really is quite marginal. I guess if none of the hits connect, the players knowing that it is higher than 22 but not how much higher could affect their immediate plans.  But it is already clear that "Yikes" is the operative expression. :D

Hm, I get that most of the time players figure out the AC after the first round, but I'm missing the "utility" part. What benefit is gained by hiding it for the first round? I haven't noticed it particularly increases the excitement or engagement in my games, maybe you've seen differently.

Quote from: Zalman on March 03, 2021, 12:23:34 PM

Hm, I get that most of the time players figure out the AC after the first round, but I'm missing the "utility" part. What benefit is gained by hiding it for the first round? I haven't noticed it particularly increases the excitement or engagement in my games, maybe you've seen differently.

I do see a bit of nervousness on the first round due to not knowing the AC.  This gets magnified if there are a lot of misses or hits in that first round.  Plus, with uncertainty comes some decisions.  I've seen players decide to retreat based on the outcome of that first round (when maybe the didn't need to) and the opposite as well. 

My main point though, using "80% utility," is that whatever utility any group gets from the players not knowing the AC (whether a little or a lot), you get most of it that first round. 

I didn't mention that I also have a strong bias towards mechanics speeding up a combat progresses, because I think this naturally leads to more enjoyable fights.  I don't mind some "freeze frame" type descriptions at the climatic moment, but I want that coming from the GM, not the mechanics.  So I've not only got a reason to not particularly value the hidden AC the longer the fight goes, I've got a positive reason for speeding up mechanical resolution as the fight goes.  Thus, I often just tell the players the AC they need after the 1st round, 2nd or 3rd at most.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 03, 2021, 01:30:17 PM

Quote from: Zalman on March 03, 2021, 12:23:34 PM

Hm, I get that most of the time players figure out the AC after the first round, but I'm missing the "utility" part. What benefit is gained by hiding it for the first round? I haven't noticed it particularly increases the excitement or engagement in my games, maybe you've seen differently.

I do see a bit of nervousness on the first round due to not knowing the AC.  This gets magnified if there are a lot of misses or hits in that first round.  Plus, with uncertainty comes some decisions.  I've seen players decide to retreat based on the outcome of that first round (when maybe the didn't need to) and the opposite as well. 

Another point: The nervousness will still occur, even if the DM calls out the monster's AC before the players roll. That's because the DM isn't going to call out the number until the players have already made the commitment to attack, so they have to make the most important decision without knowing the monster's AC. I've played with hidden ACs, and think the value is basically negligible.

It is much better to create nervousness from uncertainty regarding what a known monster may or may not do, than it is to rely on math uncertainty which only goes so far

Down the latter road lies the lazy DMing of reskinning monsters in the vain hope to recreate ignorance on an encounter-by-encounter basis.  While the former approach allows the monster itself to be known, as that is the least important bit of information

You are not scared of bears in the woods, crocodiles in certain rivers, or big cats where they are found, because you're an ignorant rube who's been kept from the collective memory of humanity

Semi-related to the point about uncertainty above is another advantage of "d20+mods vs. TN" over THAC0 that I first encountered when driven out AD&D and into Palladium; the ease of resolving opposed actions by making the TN another d20+mods roll.

The feeling of depth that getting to roll your defense (and opponent's defense likewise being variable) added to combat had just the right feel for me at that time. It also "hides" the monsters defenses by not having it be a fixed value and, if the GM isn't rolling in the open the players have to guess whether an announced total is due to skill or luck.

This isn't to say you can't do opposed attack or skill checks in AD&D; just that there's more math involved... typically rolling then determining a margin from the result and comparing it to the margin of the other roll. But that's nowhere near the efficiency of just "roll total vs. roll total; high result wins" (ties breaking results specific to each system).

So add that as yet another benefit to the "d20+mods" talent stack. It makes checks like hide and move silently vs. creatures with superior senses as simple as comparing two rolls and I've often found increased buy-ins during combat in systems where players get to do something in response to an attack even if, mechanically, its really just 1d20+mods-1d20 vs. target's defense mod and could be handled in a single roll.

It pretty much falls into that "advantage/disadvantage" mechanic category of its feel (giving a sense of having some control over your defense) being more important than the efficiency of the mechanic. +/-5 would have just about the same or better effect on most checks as roll twice and use better/worse, but the FEEL of a successful "save vs. failure" trumps the logic in play. In the same way, no one remembers the times you rolled a 9-12 on the die defense for a defense... the remember the time they rolled a natural 20 and avoided a deadly blow (and also the amusing times when they rolled horribly, but the attacker rolled even worse).