|
mellonbread posted:The Industry thread performs the same function as grognards.txt used to, just with twitter arguments instead of forum posts. That might be accurate, but it's not as funny. 
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
I remember the good old days when a grognard was someone who was obtuse about THAC0 being objectively stupid, rather than an actually horrible person.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I remember the good old days when a grognard was someone who was obtuse about THAC0 being objectively stupid, rather than an actually horrible person. I mean, a lot of them were horrible people keeping pretty much anyone who wasn't a cis white male out of the hobby.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I remember the good old days when a grognard was someone who was obtuse about THAC0 being objectively stupid, rather than an actually horrible person. Hey, if you ever want someone who will ardently defend Thac0 as simple and intuitive, you can always PM me. I'll never be unwilling to die on that hill.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Hey, if you ever want someone who will ardently defend Thac0 as simple and intuitive, you can always PM me. I'll never be unwilling to die on that hill.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Thac0 was fine but staying proud of it now is silly. It wasn't hard math or anything so it's like being proud of knowing how to use a laundry mangle.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
You can just take the bonuses you have since 3.0, subtract them from the DC/AC, and you get the on-die target number, if you're looking for that old school feel.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You can just take the bonuses you have since 3.0, subtract them from the DC/AC, and you get the on-die target number, if you're looking for that old school feel.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
My hope is that the industry thread serves as a better resource than old grognards.txt ever did. It keeps the focus of the helldumping on actual significant industry people rather than literally anyone with a bad opinion, and the topic is open for actually positive discussions rather than being focused exclusively on finding bad things people said to be angry about. THAC0 was fine, in that most players could figure out that you wanted a low number and could do subtractive math even past 0 and into negative numbers, but it was also a design aberration in a game where you usually wanted a higher number rather than a lower number, and that could be counterintuitive to a new player. Reversing the direction the number goes, so it'd be parallel with most of the other character stats, was a good thing to do. Grognards mad about getting rid of THAC0 is really just a proxy indicator for someone who gets mad about any change irrespective of the reasoning for it, and finds themselves rationalizing their anger with dubious or spurious arguments that don't really hold up. In that respect it used to be just one of a few fairly accurate red flags for of a particular type of player/poster that it's not worth engaging in debate with over the evolution of D&D or game design in general. Like many red flags, it's not necessarily the case that everyone who preferred THAC0 is some unreasonable grognard.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:THAC0 was fine, in that most players could figure out that you wanted a low number and could do subtractive math even past 0 and into negative numbers, but it was also a design aberration in a game where you usually wanted a higher number rather than a lower number, and that could be counterintuitive to a new player. Reversing the direction the number goes, so it'd be parallel with most of the other character stats, was a good thing to do. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Yea, don't get rid of THAC0, get rid of the best possible armor giving an AC of negative 10.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:THAC0 was fine, in that most players could figure out that you wanted a low number and could do subtractive math even past 0 and into negative numbers, but it was also a design aberration in a game where you usually wanted a higher number rather than a lower number, and that could be counterintuitive to a new player. Reversing the direction the number goes, so it'd be parallel with most of the other character stats, was a good thing to do. I think there was more of an even split between wanting high and low numbers in TSR D&D. You wanted low saving throw numbers. You wanted to roll low on your ability or proficiency checks and any percentile rolls. But yeah, all that added up to a system that wasn't complicated, but was counterintuitive. And switching to ascending numbers for everything is probably the single best improvement WotC D&D made over TSR D&D. Siivola posted:You also wanted low saving throws.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Everyone in my group hates THAC0, but when I start saying "I attack and hit AC 19 for 11 slashing", the DM likes it and the other players copy it. Really, what people don't like is that it's not consistent about buffs going up and penalties going down. And yes, I know a bonus to hit leads to a lower THAC0 in any edition, but the, I don't know, optics?, Are different.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
The one thing that never fails to get me is the Ring of Protection +1 which lowers your AC by one and adds +1 to your saving throw rolls.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Hey, if you ever want someone who will ardently defend Thac0 as simple and intuitive, you can always PM me. I'll never be unwilling to die on that hill. I too like ThAC0, you are not alone.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Perfectly fine to like THAC0, in fact I'd venture a guess that no one gives a poo poo if you do or not. It's when someone start rattling on about it being a bellwether for the times when stupid newbies took over the hobby that they get the .txt next to their opinion from now on. Also it always leads to a lot of "I know it's identical, but it's just better y'know" feels posts that are frankly delicious.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Siivola posted:You also wanted low saving throws. Yeah, that's why I said "most" PeterWeller posted:You wanted to roll low on your ability or proficiency checks and any percentile rolls. That's different. You mostly wanted higher numbers on your character sheet, and roll-under was (and still is) a reasonable approach to having "higher=better" when it comes to stats on your sheet. High hit points, skills, and character attributes = better. Counterintuitive exception: low AC and saves = better. These were not especially hard things to grasp, the average 12 year old managed just fine, but it also should not have been especially controversial for the designers to change these things either.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
THAC0 is stupid. Zeb Cook knew that it was stupid when he designed AD&D2e. But he also knew his fanbase, and predicted that they would bleat horribly if he changed it to something less stupid. So it remained.hyphz posted:Yea, don't get rid of THAC0, get rid of the best possible armor giving an AC of negative 10. theironjef posted:Also it always leads to a lot of "I know it's identical, but it's just better y'know" feels posts that are frankly delicious. (There should actually be five stats you roll to avoid bad things: STR, DEX, INT, WIS, and CHA.) Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 19:31 on May 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, that's why I said "most" Yeah, fair point, but also another example of counterintuitive design: sometimes you want to roll high. Sometimes you want to roll low. Many of those rolls use the same D20. Halloween Jack posted:THAC0 is stupid. Zeb Cook knew that it was stupid when he designed AD&D2e. But he also knew his fanbase, and predicted that they would bleat horribly if he changed it to something less stupid. So it remained. Gamma World 4E's ascending THAC was a revelation to tween me. I couldn't understand why AD&D didn't use it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I remember the good old days when a grognard was someone who was obtuse about THAC0 being objectively stupid, rather than an actually horrible person. It's a tragically normal consequence of normal people who might hold those opinions shrugging and quietly playing the games they like, while the ones who are left to vocally trumpet how much better X thing was are in it for the clout, and then as people get bored of that branding they have to keep escalating for attention.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, fair point, but also another example of counterintuitive design: sometimes you want to roll high. Sometimes you want to roll low. Many of those rolls use the same D20. I agree that D&D never went all the way that it ought to have, and systems where you always want to roll high or always low are cleaner and more intuitive. Modiphius' 2d20 system has some aspects in common with D&D, but you always want to roll low on your d20s or d6s (and those are the only dice the game uses). The only exception is if you're not using the custom 20-sided hit location die and are mapping a normal d20 to it (and you only use hit locations in some cases and the game provides an alternate rule if you want to never use that mechanic). While 2d20 has other aspects that are not very intuitive, I really like the elegance of this basic mechanic. Cheer if you roll low, groan if you roll high, always. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I agree that D&D never went all the way that it ought to have, and systems where you always want to roll high or always low are cleaner and more intuitive. My only experience with 2D20 is reading the Dune RPG, which doesn't use the D6 challenge dice or the hit location die. It struck me as generally intuitive aside from some of the ways it abstracts all conflicts to the same set of mechanics. But the examples it provides for those cleared up any confusion I had.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Modiphius' 2d20 system has some aspects in common with D&D, but you always want to roll low on your d20s or d6s (and those are the only dice the game uses). The only exception is if you're not using the custom 20-sided hit location die and are mapping a normal d20 to it (and you only use hit locations in some cases and the game provides an alternate rule if you want to never use that mechanic). While 2d20 has other aspects that are not very intuitive, I really like the elegance of this basic mechanic. Cheer if you roll low, groan if you roll high, always. A lot of the newer 2d20 games have, IIRC, a desire to roll high on the d6.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
In Conan, the "special" d6 has a phoenix (of the titular sword, the first Conan story Howard published) instead of the 5 and 6, and it's good to roll the phoenix, so you're sorta right for Conan too. The way that die maps to a normal d6 is: 1 = 1 damage 2 = 2 damage 3, 4 = 0 damage 5, 6 = 1 damage + an effect So broadly I guess you want to roll either high or low but not in the middle. But if your weapon has nothing that triggers on an Effect, the 2 is the best face to roll and the 1, 5, and 6 are all equivalent. e. this is what the custom dice look like:  I think it's fair to just discount the 6-sided damage die and say that in 2d20 you want to roll low, but with an exception or two depending on which game you're playing and if that game uses a special die for something. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, fair point, but also another example of counterintuitive design: sometimes you want to roll high. Sometimes you want to roll low. Many of those rolls use the same D20. I don't have trouble with wanting to roll low on a d20 while wanting to roll high on the damage die. I don't think anyone has trouble grasping that. But if we're talking about bellyfeel, there's just something...irritating about "adding negatives" to attack rolls per THAC0.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Perfectly fine to like THAC0, in fact I'd venture a guess that no one gives a poo poo if you do or not. It's when someone start rattling on about it being a bellwether for the times when stupid newbies took over the hobby that they get the .txt next to their opinion from now on. I think for me the big thing was that Thac0 and AC in 2nd ed felt bounded, and then you hit 3.x and everything just inflates into ridiculousness and numbers kinda lose their meaning. You'll never be "good at hitting stuff" or "good at not being hit" or "good at not being incinerated by fireballs" or "able to pick locks like a champ," because the DC's and bonuses just keep escalating into the stratosphere. Technically that same thing could happen with Thac0 and 2e AC, there was really nothing in the mechanics that prevented it, but at the same time nothing in the core design caused it, either. Generally I'm a fan of any system with a fixed TN for most things, something that lets you objectively be competent at something and know that you will remain competent at it, that there are no goalposts to shift.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I think for me the big thing was that Thac0 and AC in 2nd ed felt bounded, and then you hit 3.x and everything just inflates into ridiculousness and numbers kinda lose their meaning. You'll never be "good at hitting stuff" or "good at not being hit" or "good at not being incinerated by fireballs" or "able to pick locks like a champ," because the DC's and bonuses just keep escalating into the stratosphere. BRP systems like Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest kind of try to do this (they're percentile roll under for the most part), but then you have to account for Lovecraftian horrors/superhuman beasts so you end up having entities with 150% in X skill.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:BRP systems like Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest kind of try to do this (they're percentile roll under for the most part), but then you have to account for Lovecraftian horrors/superhuman beasts so you end up having entities with 150% in X skill. Right, but! I don't think this is fundamentally an issue. Say that, for instance, making two attacks in a round(or an aimed shot or whatever other shenanigans the system permits for), and both attacks are rolled at Skill-(50). Then suddenly, having 150 in a skill means you can make reliable double attacks. Or doing things rapidly incurs a skill penalty. Or doing things without your tools(at 150% Lockpicking those guards are free to pat you down because you can pick those locks with your bare hands and maybe a strand of hair).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Technically that same thing could happen with Thac0 and 2e AC, there was really nothing in the mechanics that prevented it, but at the same time nothing in the core design caused it, either. I know it was identical, but it was just better, y'know? No but seriously I absolutely agree about preferring flat math to endlessly identical bonuses on either side of a boring stalemate dice war. It just doesn't actually have anything to do with THAC0 or BAB. The choice to let bonuses spiral forever probably had more to do with trying to appeal to video game players who were tuned to love seeing big numbers (though that's entirely conjecture on my part).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Right, but! I don't think this is fundamentally an issue. So do you want the DCs to stay bounded?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Right, but! I don't think this is fundamentally an issue. Splicer fucked around with this message at 22:31 on May 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So do you want the DCs to stay bounded?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
theironjef posted:
I really love the way Questworlds(fka HeroQuest) handles unbounded number scaling with the concept of Masteries. So simple, so elegant.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
Definitely going to write more about system math and target numbers tomorrow, but in the meantime, there's always Target 20.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
On the psychology of rolling, it’s notable that in all versions of D&D except 4e, combat meant rolling to hit and magic meant rolling to save. It generally conveyed the idea that when you swing a sword, it might not achieve anything, but if you cast a fireball then a fireball is absolutely happening and the only question is whether or not it hurts the target. This doubled up with spell resistance in 3e which came across as much more annoying for casters than a simple bonus to save because it meant the caster DID have to roll, with the attendant feeling of their spell just being snuffed out on a low roll. So “the one who rolls is the one who might fail” seems reasonable. But then we get to games like cypher, AW and Black Hack where the players are the only ones to roll, ever. I cannot think of any game with the opposite -where only the GM rolls. But by the “the one who rolls is the one who might fail” rule, the GM being the only one to roll would be more empowering for the players, not less. It seems that at some point it got mixed up with “the one who rolls is the one who is acting,” but nobody feels like that with D&D saves.. it seems a strange contradiction.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 06:52
|
|
|
having the players roll is a trade-off between mental math and look-up workload on one hand, and hidden information / secrecy on the other (and possibly a few other similar considerations). if everyone sees the dice anyways then there's no actual difference in either agency or risk and if you absolutely must base design decisions on tummyfeels you should at least try to keep in mind that they're arbitrary signifiers, that there's nothing to bind them to a particular meaning except precedent alternatively, points to thread title Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 07:04 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
Julian Gollop's Chaos is a (video) game where players are explicitly permitted to "lie" about roll results -- it's a PvP game about two wizards summoning monsters to try to kill the other wizard, where summoning a real monster has only a random chance to succeed, but you can also cast them as illusions. illusions always succeed, but can be dispelled by "disbelief" on the other players part, which costs a turn but no other resources it'd be fun to work something like that into a TTRPG, and it'd be one of the rare cases where randomness serves a purpose but hidden information or resource management alone would never work for the same goal Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 07:11 on May 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Julian Gollop's Chaos is a (video) game where players are explicitly permitted to "lie" about roll results -- it's a PvP game about two wizards summoning monsters to try to kill the other wizard, where summoning a real monster has only a random chance to succeed, but you can also cast them as illusions. illusions always succeed, but can be dispelled by "disbelief" on the other players part, which costs a turn but no other resources Oh man I have so many memories of that on the ZX Spectrum.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 08:34
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Definitely going to write more about system math and target numbers tomorrow, but in the meantime, there's always Target 20. this is my favorite way of doing old-school attack rolls
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Whybird posted:Oh man I have so many memories of that on the ZX Spectrum. https://store.steampowered.com/app/319050/Chaos_Reborn/ i have about five minutes of play on this, i must actually try it sometime
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 10:59
|
|
