Why exactly do so many people seem to dislike the descending AC numbers of early D&D? THAC0 seems so simple.

In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):

lol, I still have trouble not trying to subtract AC from THAC0 in 5e...we seem the minority, though. ;)

In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):

I also like the elegance of THAC0, and prefer descending AC. But for most people, adding is easier than adding and subtracting, so can certainly see why they prefer ascending AC.

While I wish no harm to anyone, when someone says they cannot understand THAC0 at all, I always imagine their head would explode if they were to look at a golf leader board.

From what I have seen, they just keep trying to reinvent the horse with AD&D. so to speak.

Well, if they don't keep trying to reinvent the horse, how else can they keep strong-arming people into buying new "improved" horses?

It's obnoxious behaviour, really. I'm all for new content from the games I play, but 'new content' isn't/shouldn't be 'an entirely new way of doing things that renders everything you already own useless and in need of replacement'. They might as well just scream 'GIVE US YOUR MONEY!' directly.

In reply to Piestar (msg # 1805):

I started with descending AC and didn't think anything of it. No issues. That's just the way it was and I never gave it too much though. In 1e, I used a to-hit matrix. In 2e I never warmed to THAC0 and usually made a to-hit matrix so I didn't have to do the math.

3e came along and brought ascending AC. To-hit charts were no longer needed. Adding numbers to a dice roll and comparing it to a target number is intuitive; whereas, before you would add numbers to a d20 roll (to hit modifers, magic bonuses, etc.) to come up with a total number. Then, with that total number, you reverse engineer the number you need to hit descending AC. It's an unnecessary step. That's why I dislike it. I can do the math. I just don't want to.

I view it similar to how when I was a kid I used to type reports on a manual typewriter. At some point, I got an electric typewriter, and then a word processing program. When I didn't know about electric typewriters or word processors, manual typewriters were fine. Not so great after, other than for nostalgia.

The problem with THAC0 is that you want an overall direction with your game for easy reference. Positives are good, negatives are bad (or vice versa). In AD&D it was kind of a hodgepodge where you wanted to roll high but you also wanted your THAC0 to be low. In a vacuum it's not hard but remember that a +1 to sword is good but +1 to armor is bad kind of wrecks people.

Hahaha, too funny. I like that thought... and scoring for bowling must really confuse them.

That might be the crux of the difference for me, I like high and low to be good in different situations. Stat checks were a breeze because you wanted to roll under your stat number, obviously the higher your ability the easier it was to pass. I do on occasion run in to games who can't quite wrap their heads around that, but I always liked it.

Haha!  Back when I was young and stupid (early 1980's), I built my own system, because I was unsatisfied with existing ones.  In my system, everything was a percentage roll.  When you started out, still low level characters, you wanted to roll under your skill percentage, and under half or a third of your percentage was a critical.  But once you were veterans facing tougher opponents, you would have to roll under half just to connect, and under a third or a fourth to do real damage.  The idea was that really great characters would eventually get their skills into the 200's, such that rolling under a quarter of their ability was not incredibly surprising, and they even would roll under a sixth or and eighth sometimes.

It was horrendously complicated, as you might have guessed.  We played it for about 4 sessions and everyone revolted, sending us back to AD&D with its THAC0's.

In reply to Zag24 (msg # 1814):

Very creative of you, given time I'll bet it could have become something really great. Just think, with more supportive friends, you might be putting out 5th Ed. versions of your books.

I always enjoyed having a reason to have a variety of dice though, systems can become too bare-bones, it seems to me.

Someone pointed out to me that a d20 is actually a really simple approximation of a percentage roll because 5% increments are easy to wrap your head around.

It's so obvious but it also kind of blew my mind when I realized that was why D&D switched to a d20 system as opposed to a d100 percentage you see in other systems.

Nobody cares about the difference between 84% and 83% but the difference 85% and 80% that is something you can intuitively understand.

In reply to praguepride (msg # 1816):

You never played rolemaster I am guessing. The difference between 84% and 83% could be significant! I loved that rule set, but could find no one willing to play it. Sad.

Heh heh, no.  One good aspect of the system was that there was no damage roll.  Your weapon did a base amount of damage -- ranging from 2 points for fist to 8 points for great axe -- and then you multiplied that times the "crit number" which was the reciprocal of the fraction you had rolled under.   For the less math-inclined, if you were under 1/2 your percent, your crit number is 2.  If you were under 1/5 your percent, your crit number is 5.  Maximum crit number is 10, so that a roll of 1 doesn't mean 60 times damage.

Armor worked like damage resistance, so would be subtracted from the roll.  That's why, when fighting a dragon, say, with an armor of 15, you can't even scratch him with a crit value of 1 or 2, you need to be rolling triple or quadruple damage to hurt him.

This much wouldn't have been so bad.  However, I also tried to incorporate hit locations a la early Runequest.  It was a hot mess.

In reply to praguepride (msg # 1816):

Don't go to a casino. ;) I'm being cheeky. I agree with you to an extent. A 10% chance and a 5% chance are very different, as is a 95% and 90% chance. Heck even a 55% chance is significant over 50%. I've long since viewed d20 as % based. That's just how I process dice systems. So it was insane the number of people I had to argue with (kindly) over the fact rolling a 10 9and that succeeding) was a 55% chance of success. It took a long time, for such a simple process of saying, "Yes, 10 is half of 20, but 9 fails, 10 doesn't". This was critical in scenes where the DC was obvious.

CoK (or CoC) use % systems and I liked that aspect...just preferred the former's tone and intention.

In reply to Zag24 (msg # 1818):

I don't know, sounds awesome to me. I suspect every really good game started as a hot mess.

Look at D&D! Wait...I'm thinking...

In reply to V_V (msg # 1819):

Funny how people don't seem to grasp the basic numbers behind D&D. I remember a debate I was having with a guy over what you should be able to accomplish with a natural twenty. He wanted the result to be miraculous. I suggested that miracles shouldn't happen, five percent of the time. He clearly had never connected a natural 20 with 5%.
I always like the idea that special results should come from extended rolls, and second natural twenty, or some such, for a special result.

I put a 5% tolerance on all absolutes. no one (-+5%) cares about 1% and 1% never (-+5%) matters. Also the universe is empty (-+5%) and no portion (-+5%) of the earths population lives in Nebraska.

---

^^ This reminds me of when I had to learn about statistics, chi squares and margins of error.  Up until that point, I thought I was fair-to-middling at math.  It just about broke my brain.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 1823):

*Literally smh* *sigh*

Hot mess aside, I think the idea of fixed damage multiplied by how well you hit is pretty neat.  Easily scalable too (as in the dragon example).

Hang with too many pedants.

Me: "All crows are black."
Jerks: "Well actually albino crows exist."
Me: "STFU you know that all means all -+5%! Now give me all the chips.
Jerks: "Can..."
Me: "YES YOU CAN HAVE A FEW!"

Gotcha. So you've never (-+5%) played rolemaster. Neither have I.
This message was lightly edited by the user at 15:01, Mon 03 May 2021.

Stats is magic with numbers, lol.