D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Maxperson]

Challenging the statement is fine. Getting upset because someone didn't explicitly state it was their opinion is a bit silly. Go ahead and assume I put an IMHO at the beginning of that last sentence.

It's more fun to put an IMHOtep at the end. Let the Mummy eat their faces.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's more fun to put an IMHOtep at the end. Let the Mummy eat their faces.

He's a level 20 expert?

 

[Maxperson]

He's a level 20 expert?

Yeah. Let's go with that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah. Let's go with that.

View attachment 383526

I like those movies he's also a lvl 20 expert.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am only DMing two right now. It is a lot harder to DM than to play.

There was a period many, many years ago when I ran games both Saturday and Sunday every week; there was even a period when across two weeks those were four different campaigns (entirely probably with four different game systems).

I'm not sure I could do that any more even if I wanted to. I'm about up to GM-one/play-one on alternate weeks. (i.e. being involved in a game every week, but only GMing every other week).

 

[Baron Opal II]

First let's look at the definition of subjective;

"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

There is no factual basis for your assessment of "better" or "improvement" in the examples in this post. They are statements of opinion. As opinions, I can fully disagree with you on these examples as nothing factual is stated.

Actually, there is...

Some relevant facts: the ease of computation; the avoidance of contradiction in having "+" means "-"; the comparability of "level" as a measure of character puissance; the avoidance of unintended oddities like level drain being more severe for a paladin than (say) a thief or a mid-level MU.

Just looking at the aspect of having all bonuses being additive is, in fact*, an objective improvement. It is easier for the human mind to add than subtract. Now, the difference in effort could be trivial in most cases. However, it has been shown that a series of additions is quicker and less prone to error than a mixed situation of additions and subtractions.

See the paper by MacIntyre, University of Edinburgh, 2003, in a test of 2-digits sums and differences (six of each) given to 8th-graders (N = 135): "Addition tasks are clearly completed in a much more confident manner than the subtraction items, with over 50% of the study group gaining maximum credit. Subtraction items appear to have presented a much bigger challenge to the pupils, with around 50% of them having 3 or more questions wrong." See also Kamii et. al. 2001 (a study of N = 33 kindergartners, and N = 59 first and fourth-graders).**

* Heh.
** Due credit to Delta's D&D Hotspot who references these papers.

 

[ezo]

Just looking at the aspect of having all bonuses being additive is, in fact*, an objective improvement. It is easier for the human mind to add than subtract. Now, the difference in effort could be trivial in most cases. However, it has been shown that a series of additions is quicker and less prone to error than a mixed situation of additions and subtractions.

And yet we still subtract damage from hit points... Frankly, this caused (and still causes!) more mistakes in the maths of D&D than having decreasing AC ever did IME. The study you mentioned involved 2-digit sums and differences and is much more appropriate in demonstrating how damage should be tracked cumulatively instead of being subtracted from a maximum value:

I mean, these are NOT the type of numbers used in AC caluclations in AD&D or d20 systems, so I don't find your conclusion quite as supportive as you do.

At any rate, I always find such discussions odd because I never recall anyone when I was an adolescent through college having issues with the concepts involve with the AD&D "to hit" tables nor the use of THAC0.

It was never IME or IMO a maths issue, it was understanding that +1 armor was one "class" (which is why it is called Armor CLASS) better than without the +1. You moved "up" on the to hit tables, showing you had better protection and the attacker has to roll "one higher" to hit you than they would have needed had you not been wearing the +1 armor. Even when AC's were negative values, it wasn't a problem really.

THAC0 was simple enough. You recorded one number and subtracted the AC value of the target to find the number you needed to hit. You rolled, added any bonuses, and hit if your roll was at or above that to hit number, you hit. Alternatively, and what many people did, was subtract their attack bonus from THAC0, so once they also subtracted AC, you didn't add anything to the roll. Worked either way.

In general, the numbers we are discussing are small enough it was very rare, if ever, an issue IME. However, I very much understand why with 3E they need to change things! Bonuses and ACs became so extreme without the to hit tables that the maths actually would be vastly easier with an additive system. In fact, there were more errors in 3E in attacks and AC due to the crazy numbers you needed to track than I ever saw in AD&D.

But hey, that was just my experience.

 

[Zardnaar]

And yet we still subtract damage from hit points... Frankly, this caused (and still causes!) more mistakes in the maths of D&D than having decreasing AC ever did IME. The study you mentioned involved 2-digit sums and differences and is much more appropriate in demonstrating how damage should be tracked cumulatively instead of being subtracted from a maximum value:

View attachment 383575

I mean, these are NOT the type of numbers used in AC caluclations in AD&D or d20 systems, so I don't find your conclusion quite as supportive as you do.

At any rate, I always find such discussions odd because I never recall anyone when I was an adolescent through college having issues with the concepts involve with the AD&D "to hit" tables nor the use of THAC0.

It was never IME or IMO a maths issue, it was understanding that +1 armor was one "class" (which is why it is called Armor CLASS) better than without the +1. You moved "up" on the to hit tables, showing you had better protection and the attacker has to roll "one higher" to hit you than they would have needed had you not been wearing the +1 armor. Even when AC's were negative values, it wasn't a problem really.

THAC0 was simple enough. You recorded one number and subtracted the AC value of the target to find the number you needed to hit. You rolled, added any bonuses, and hit if your roll was at or above that to hit number, you hit. Alternatively, and what many people did, was subtract their attack bonus from THAC0, so once they also subtracted AC, you didn't add anything to the roll. Worked either way.

In general, the numbers we are discussing are small enough it was very rare, if ever, an issue IME. However, I very much understand why with 3E they need to change things! Bonuses and ACs became so extreme without the to hit tables that the maths actually would be vastly easier with an additive system. In fact, there were more errors in 3E in attacks and AC due to the crazy numbers you needed to track than I ever saw in AD&D.

But hey, that was just my experience.

THAC0 works I prefer not to use it. It's not a requirement eg I was joining a pre 3E game.

I don't use it even in 2E but don't care if others do and it's not a deal breaker.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I mean, these are NOT the type of numbers used in AC caluclations in AD&D or d20 systems, so I don't find your conclusion quite as supportive as you do.

The point is evidence exists that addition is easier than subtraction.

 

[Hussar]

Apropos of nothing Fantasy Grounds counts up wounds and never subtracts.

It still confuses the hell out of me to this day.