What is wrong with THAC0?

[shadzar]

I'm not sure picking an unlocked door can lock it.

It might not, but the rogue always wanted to pick the locks first, so it became a running gag after a point where I stopped locking every door. Finally he figured out to test for traps, then try the door, the pick it if it WAS locked.

I also don't agree with the 'establish complicated rules to weed out the unworthy'. Smacks of elitism, which I find poisonous to society and small social groups alike.

Who said that. That is something people made up because they though of it that way. Was a right-handed ice cream scoop made just to piss off/exclude lefties? No, it was just made the way it was.

And stating you could have used term X but didn't is a passive aggressive insult. You just called him a 3tard. Don't bullshit about it.

Throwback to WotC forums, assuming this to be the same Tequila from there. I could be wrong and it be a different one, or another user with a strong T name that stuck in my memory, but that was long ago when 4th first came out....

I think I do understand your point of THAC0 being more behind the screen. In those earlier games the GM had the rules and the players relied on him for that resolution. Being able to just know what number the player had to roll probably did work better.

Exactly.

But I don't subscribe to the idea that GMs are better than players.

Where the fuck did that come from? These subjective terms of better, have nothing to do with it. Many people must have an inferiority complex to think it is one person is better than the other...

The DM just simply had/has his job, and the players had/have theirs.

The DM just knew a lot more about the game than the players. You wouldn't see each player with a copy of the adventure as you were playing it. Goes back to the behind the screen thing. The DM kept things going while the players got to run wild through the adventures.

So each just had different...."roles"...in the game.

So I prefer a system that everyone gets on the first try. 3.5 has that with a single bonus added up before hand, applied to the die roll and compared to the target number of the monster. So THAC0 doesn't mesh with me.

Ok you don't like it, it isn't that it doesn't work. That is a fair evaluation and your choice. Also the first time someone has just come out and said to me "I don't like it." I can in no way argue with that, because only you can decide what you like or don't like.

I disagree with the rest in this section, because of a few reasons:

1- No edition of D&D has everyone "get it" on the first try.
2- Not everyone needs to know the behind the scenes things unless they want to run a game, and many I know don't WANT to know how to run a game.
3- Computer games that do the math for you completely hidden, many people don't "get it" the first try, which connects to #1.
4- 3.5 has more than a single bonus when you think about all the buffs, and status effects, etc. It is just like every other edition with their own form of Bless, or other types of buffs. So it is up to the DM and players as to how, and who figures this out. With computers today being used at games to speed up math and such as well look things up. The math becomes much less a problem no matter who is doing it. Those who want to do it will, and those who don't can have someone else futz with it for them.

I had one player that just wanted to roll the dice. Just tell him what info you need from the sheet, and whether he gets to roll for damage.

So the transparency is there for any who WANT to read the DMG, and nobody should be denied even though a player-never-wanting-to-DM really doesn't gain anything from it. It just boils down to what you said...you don't like it. Which is your choice.

But it doesn't mean the system doesn't work, just that it doesn't work FOR YOU as well as you would like it to.

[Leress]

No one said the system didn't work.

[shadzar]

No one said the system didn't work.

Over the years, I have seen many that say just that. One of the reasons I asked the question yet again on an internet forum.

Here it seems people just say they don't like the way it works.

Well here one was arguing the system doesn't work because AC is better with a lower value....and say that it doesn't work that way....

It all seems to always revolve around subtracting a negative number. Because many come about the extra step which is -1(-X).

I always do simple math before higher order math. I wouldn't convert the negative, I would just subtract it. Two wrongs don't make a right, but two negatives make a plus. And once you write down the correct number, it doesn't matter where they came from, you just do the math in any system.

[TOZ]

Where the fuck did that come from?

The grognard mentions got me thinking of certain elitists I've run into. I do apologize that it seemed directed at you. I suppose it's mostly dislike for a system I've only heard about based on the bad representatives I've had to deal with.

I did fully admit that 3.5 has negative modifiers and the like. However they are all added up once, with the situational modifiers coming and going. As I understand it THAC0 doesn't work that way.

It's late, and I need to sleep, so I'll cut off here rather than give any more incoherent posts.

[shadzar]

Where the fuck did that come from?

The grognard mentions got me thinking of certain elitists I've run into. I do apologize that it seemed directed at you. I suppose it's mostly dislike for a system I've only heard about based on the bad representatives I've had to deal with.

I did fully admit that 3.5 has negative modifiers and the like. However they are all added up once, with the situational modifiers coming and going. As I understand it THAC0 doesn't work that way.

It's late, and I need to sleep, so I'll cut off here rather than give any more incoherent posts.

Afternoon is late? Damn those timezones! They should be abolished so everyone uses the same damn clock!

You should try a game of 2nd to see how THAC0 works. People kept telling me how wonderful 3rd was, and after playing it I still thought it was crap with all the feats and garbage that forced the NWPs and secondary skills on you that were optional on a player-to-player basis before. And if you didn't have the right feat you couldn't do/try this or that.

So look over the system with your own eyes if not play it to see how it reads at least.

As for those always thinking a GM is better than the players or some shit...well the GM is a special player, in so much as they gain a lot of different thing than the other players and lose the ability to play in the game at the same time; but they are all players equally as important to each other. You cannot have a game without player, and you cannot have one without a GM. (I don't know what those solo quest things were...they sucked ass!)

[Count Arioch the 28th]

See, I tried both systems, and prefer 3E better. in 3e, you need the right feat to do anything. in 2E, you basically can't do it.

[Ravengm]

You should try a game of 2nd to see how THAC0 works. People kept telling me how wonderful 3rd was, and after playing it I still thought it was crap with all the feats and garbage that forced the NWPs and secondary skills on you that were optional on a player-to-player basis before. And if you didn't have the right feat you couldn't do/try this or that.

It's better than before, where you simply weren't allowed to do things. Want to pick locks? Better hope you're a thief.

[shadzar]

You are both wrong. This is popular misconception because it didn't give you some ability to do anything. The fact is you CAN try anything you want to. Your success being untrained, just like in 4th edition; happens to just be very low.

There is nothing anywhere stating a fighter cannot try to pick a lock.

Being able to try things with a low chance of success, is better than only being able to try things on the pre-approved feats/powers systems chart.

I didn't need Tree Climbing feat in order to climb a tree for example.

But this is off-topic for THAC0, so maybe we could/should start a new thread for it? Whoever does, just let me know when you have presented your full case (made the thread) , and I will join that discussion.

[Guyr Adamantine]

I didn't need Tree Climbing feat in order to climb a tree for example.

Bullshit.

Climb DC 15: Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.

[Tequila Sunrise]

The real problem with Thac0 is that it requires marginally more time to compute, thereby instilling a false sense of superiority in nostalgic grognards, while providing no actual advantage over the more elegant DC system.

Explain it then young buck.

If the less-intuitive nature of smaller numbers being better isn't self-evident to you, I can't help you.

[shadzar]

I didn't need Tree Climbing feat in order to climb a tree for example.

Bullshit.

Climb DC 15: Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.

How does the d20 SRD have anything to do with 2nd edition?

Myself and Count both state you need the right feat to do something in 3rd.

You don't need (because they didn't exist) any feat to try something in 2nd. You just got some bonuses if you had a skill for it to a dice roll vs something. Similar to a DC check in 3rd.

[shadzar]

The real problem with Thac0 is that it requires marginally more time to compute, thereby instilling a false sense of superiority in nostalgic grognards, while providing no actual advantage over the more elegant DC system.

Explain it then young buck.

If the less-intuitive nature of smaller numbers being better isn't self-evident to you, I can't help you.

Math is easy for me, and subtraction doesn't scare me. As a DM I didn't mind doing all the math because it spend up the game. Others I know liked the DM keeping MANY things behind the screen so they could just play and worry about less.

My question was, since tha majority of people are players, unless your game has more DMs per session than players; what were the duties of the DM vs the player during an attack roll. When the DM attacks with a monster, what work does the player have to do, and when the player attacks with his character at a monster/NPC/etc what work does he do then?

Even in one of the 3rd edition games I played in the DM just asked for the die roll, and told whether it hit or missed. Why do people assume this couldn't be done with THAC0?

So really who was doing the work vs who SHOULD/COULD having been doing the work with the math?

Player: I attack the orc. I have a THAC0 of 17 with a +2 to-hit sword, and rolled a 10. Does it hit?

Player that knows more about THAC0 by using the scale: (as above)... I can hit an AC 5 monster.
THAC0-(roll+modifiers) = AC you can hit
17-(10+2)=?
17-12=5

That is all a player needs to do in ANY of those systems. So where is the real problem at?

So, I ask again. How would YOU have it done in all three of the systems?

[Guyr Adamantine]

How does the d20 SRD have anything to do with 2nd edition?

Just pointing out the bullshit as it comes.

Myself and Count both state you need the right feat to do something in 3rd.

You don't need (because they didn't exist) any feat to try something in 2nd. You just got some bonuses if you had a skill for it to a dice roll vs something. Similar to a DC check in 3rd.

You imply that limited options is worse than no options at all.

You see, pulling rules out of your arse to accomplish the stuff the game did not (or did not want to) prepare for can be done in both 2nd and 3rd editions. I don't see what makes it so much more a great idea in 2nd, given it happens way too often.

[shadzar]

How does the d20 SRD have anything to do with 2nd edition?

Just pointing out the bullshit as it comes.

Myself and Count both state you need the right feat to do something in 3rd.

You don't need (because they didn't exist) any feat to try something in 2nd. You just got some bonuses if you had a skill for it to a dice roll vs something. Similar to a DC check in 3rd.

You imply that limited options is worse than no options at all.

You see, pulling rules out of your arse to accomplish the stuff the game did not (or did not want to) prepare for can be done in both 2nd and 3rd editions. I don't see what makes it so much more a great idea in 2nd, given it happens way too often.

No. The lack of a list of specific things you are allowed to do, in no ways means you have no options. It just means you are not bound by a finite list of options.

You do not need rules for every little thing in the game. Should the DM have a chart to roll on to see if you are allowed to try to pull your sword?

DM: Sorry, the weather was not adequate so you tried to draw your sword for the attack, but the stars were not in proper alignment.

NO!

So not being told you can do X, doesn't mean you are not allowed to do X. It just means you don't get any bonus for trying to do X because you don't have something that offers a bonus to it.

That is the biggest load of bullshit, and this really NEEDS its own thread.... The fact that there isn't a finite list of things you can try doesn't mean you cannot try anything. It just means you aren't limited on what you CAN try.

[Tequila Sunrise]

How does the d20 SRD have anything to do with 2nd edition?

Just pointing out the bullshit as it comes.

Myself and Count both state you need the right feat to do something in 3rd.

You don't need (because they didn't exist) any feat to try something in 2nd. You just got some bonuses if you had a skill for it to a dice roll vs something. Similar to a DC check in 3rd.

You imply that limited options is worse than no options at all.

You see, pulling rules out of your arse to accomplish the stuff the game did not (or did not want to) prepare for can be done in both 2nd and 3rd editions. I don't see what makes it so much more a great idea in 2nd, given it happens way too often.

The grognards I know, and I use that as a term of endearment, like the 'pull shit out of the DM's ass' method because it cuts down on crunchy options and therefore character creation time. They like banging out a PC in ten minutes, even if it's mechanically nothing more than Fighter #8351. If you have a decent DM, he'll pull mostly good shit out of his ass. The downside of course, is when you have an inexperienced and/or bad DM.

[shadzar]

Why would it take longer than 10 minutes to create a character in any edition or game, unless you are new to the game?

[Archmage]

Why would it take longer than 10 minutes to create a character in any edition or game, unless you are new to the game?

Err...because unless you're using a build posted on some forum, even if you're familiar with the game's rules, you might not have every character option memorized and may need to look through your options to pick ones that suit you?

[Maj]

It is just a range.

<- better ~~~~~ worse ->

This is the problem with THAC0.

When you learn about numbers on a real number line, the small numbers are on the left, and the big ones are on the right.

When you talk about ratings, you rate on a scale of 1 - X, with 1 being the worst and X being the best. That works for casual surveys of women's asses, rating a particular product in a consumer survey, rating hotels, or rating an expensive restaurant. In school, you aim for a 4.0, not a 1.0.

The idea that the better number is on the smaller side of the number line is completely counterintuitive. It doesn't just add in an extra step in math, it adds in a break in thought because you have to mentally correct your instinct.

I may be able to do math just fine, but playing D&D is an immersive hobby for me - it's not just an intellectual pursuit, so flipping between pretending to be someone else (a right-brained thing to do) and countering the intuitive grasp of math in order to perform basic arithmetic (a left-brained thing to do) is rather jarring. So I'll stick to the more unifying, simpler system, thanx, and if that makes me stupid and a dumb roleplayer, then don't sit at my table.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Why would it take longer than 10 minutes to create a character in any edition or game, unless you are new to the game?

If you're not a regular hardcore gamer, like those of us who visit rpg forums tend to be, you most likely don't create ten minute characters for 3e, 4e or earlier editions with a lot of splat. Why? Because for whatever reason, you don't live and breath the game, so you haven't memorized many primary class stats or feats or skills or spells or any of the other zillion options.

Maybe you have kids to watch and chores to do, so you don't have the time and attention to really grok the game. Maybe you're one of those people who are paralyzed with indecision when confronted with the question 'paper or plastic?' So naturally you just don't like lots of options. Maybe you're an actor type, who couldn't care less about the rules, and just wants to role play with your friends.

[Kaelik]

So Shadzar, here's a system for you.

How about instead of using THAC0, use this system.

Monsters have an AC, Fighters have a THAC300.

Then you go:

To compute, you have to add 13 to the monster AC, then add 12, then add 11, then add 10, then double, then add 9, then double, then add 8, then double, then divide by 2, then subtract 8, then divide by 2, then subtract 9, then divide by two, then subtract 46, then compare that number to 300, and use the comparison to determine if what the fighter rolled hits.

Now. Is this system better, equal to, or worse than the THAC0 used in 2e?

If you accept that it is worse than, why is that so?

The only logical answer of course, is that adding extra steps that don't affect anything at all are a stupid waste of time. And in addition to lying to players (and the DM) that is what THAC0 does.

[shadzar]

Why would it take longer than 10 minutes to create a character in any edition or game, unless you are new to the game?

Err...because unless you're using a build posted on some forum, even if you're familiar with the game's rules, you might not have every character option memorized and may need to look through your options to pick ones that suit you?

&Tequila:

I was reading a thread about this on ENWorld (grandma rule? my grandma would tell you to suck her dick and shut up before she beat the fuck out of your ass), and many people said similar, but the question then asked there was: are you trying to optimize or just create your character?

So with 3rd where optimization is a big thing for many, and the mountain range of feats to pick through...I guess it could take forever and 3 days to complete a character. I was able to complete one in about 10 minutes first time. Not counting figuring out those stupid WBL buy your items from the DMG item creation rules crap, of course.

@Maj: You could just flip the line. I just mentally wrote that as-is.

You don't need the numbers there at all. If people are really getting hung up on the lower AC is better concept, then don't try to figure it out. I stopped caring, and the game worked just fine. Only later did someone mention something about Arneson using ship hull ratings or something for the basis, and I was like "oh, ok."

All in all, it just goes back to the player needing only to worry about what the THAC0 number is, and what the modified die roll is.

@kids: You cannot use anything done with kids around as a basis for time it takes people to do anything. Just ask Maj about the "Step Stool Chronicles". (I hereby copyright this for a book title!)

[Maj]

I was able to complete one in about 10 minutes first time.

Bully for you.

I spent two weeks trying to make my first 3.0 character. And she was a rogue, not a spellcaster.

While I admit that I understand the system much, much better now, and character creation time has been dramatically reduced, making a character still takes about an hour for me, provided no spells.

But hell, it takes me at least half an hour to make an Everway character, and that's just distributing 20 points between six options.

@Maj: You could just flip the line. I just mentally wrote that as-is.

No, you can't flip it. You have a game that uses the bigger number is better concept for most things in the system. And then you have this one discordant but frequently used array that breaks flow.

There's no justification for that when it could be made easier, faster, and less jarring.

You're fighting to use a slide rule instead of a calculator. Yes, it works, but that doesn't mean it's optimal. With all the problems inherent in the game - even after it's been improved upon - why would you fight for suboptimal rules when a clearly preferable option is there?

[shadzar]

With all the problems inherent in the game - even after it's been improved upon - why would you fight for suboptimal rules when a clearly preferable option is there?

I have no real problems with 2nd edition, and the only with 1st was poor organization and tiny type.

I also am not an optimizer thinking my character must be a combination of the best choices of everything. I can work with things that aren't spelled out for me, and am able to think for myself without having the game to tell me what I can or cannot do.

As a DM, I can manage everything for the players, except what they want to do, and roll the dice for them...unless they want me to roll the dice for them. That will let them just get to playing.

If so many people have so many problems with the game, then how did it survive for 25 years with people playing it before WotC took over? Why didn't people just stop playing it?

What is suboptimal about a player rolling a die and saying, "I rolled a 10 to-hit". That is about as optimal as it gets!

[Maj]

I also am not an optimizer thinking my character must be a combination of the best choices of everything. I can work with things that aren't spelled out for me, and am able to think for myself without having the game to tell me what I can or cannot do.

Non-sequitur. Min/maxing a character does not relate to optimizing the behind-the-scenes rules of the game. Game rules need to be as simple as possible. Without exception.

As a DM, I can manage everything for the players, except what they want to do, and roll the dice for them...unless they want me to roll the dice for them. That will let them just get to playing.

What is suboptimal about a player rolling a die and saying, "I rolled a 10 to-hit". That is about as optimal as it gets!

This is exactly why I play Everway. I hold no illusions that the DM controls everything - despite the numbers on my character sheet - so I see little point in even rolling the dice at all. I just tell my DM what I'd like my character to do and he draws a card to see what flavor of spiciness get tossed into the plot. My character sheet consists more of notes on my character's history and personality than numbers, and that suits me just fine.

So why don't more people play Everway? Because they like the illusion of control that doing strings of addition gives them. They like happy little tactics and beating the crap out of giant crabs (en garde, bitches!). But the minute you have to do math, you have to create real rules, and once you create real rules, you have an obligation to keep them simple.

If so many people have so many problems with the game, then how did it survive for 25 years with people playing it before WotC took over? Why didn't people just stop playing it?

If you wanted to play a character-based fantasy wargame, what was the other option?

[shadzar]

I also am not an optimizer thinking my character must be a combination of the best choices of everything. I can work with things that aren't spelled out for me, and am able to think for myself without having the game to tell me what I can or cannot do.

Non-sequitur. Min/maxing a character does not relate to optimizing the behind-the-scenes rules of the game. Game rules need to be as simple as possible. Without exception.

As a DM, I can manage everything for the players, except what they want to do, and roll the dice for them...unless they want me to roll the dice for them. That will let them just get to playing.

What is suboptimal about a player rolling a die and saying, "I rolled a 10 to-hit". That is about as optimal as it gets!

This is exactly why I play Everway. I hold no illusions that the DM controls everything - despite the numbers on my character sheet - so I see little point in even rolling the dice at all. I just tell my DM what I'd like my character to do and he draws a card to see what flavor of spiciness get tossed into the plot. My character sheet consists more of notes on my character's history and personality than numbers, and that suits me just fine.

So why don't more people play Everway? Because they like the illusion of control that doing strings of addition gives them. They like happy little tactics and beating the crap out of giant crabs (en garde, bitches!). But the minute you have to do math, you have to create real rules, and once you create real rules, you have an obligation to keep them simple.

If so many people have so many problems with the game, then how did it survive for 25 years with people playing it before WotC took over? Why didn't people just stop playing it?

If you wanted to play a character-based fantasy wargame, what was the other option?

But the players don't need all the rules. They don't run monsters, so don't need their AC.

Never heard of Everway, and who are they?

I have gotten many people to play with that sheet of just notes and personality/weapons/items. They say it is less burdensome to have none of the stuff to worry about save for their own character.

I really saw the major jump to wanting all the info with 3rd edition D&D for players. MAybe because of buying magic items out of the DMG. There was some in previous editions, but I would ask them one question and they would agree that they didn't need to know.

"How would knowing what this thing can do affect what your character would do when it comes across it?"

They figured it was more fun to learn about it as you find this monster/item/etc than knowing about it beforehand. Not to mention only the most obvious monsters could be discerned form my ever0changing descriptions of them.

Character based fantasy wargame? You mean a miniature game? Chainmail?

D&D diverged from minis real quick. They came back up with BattleSystem, PO: Combats and Tactics, and DDM; but for the most part minis weren't used by everyone.

I never wanted to play a character-based fantasy wargame, and liked playing an RPG so have no idea what was around for that. I don't even know if there is a character based fantasy wargame that exists now outside of board games...HeroScape, Hero Quest, and maybe Space Hulk and that "twister" one, or was it Decent?

I guess you could play cops and robbers? Knights and bandits?