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

[Hussar]

Well, in order to have a useful design goal of "approachable by a wide audience" you need to define those things and detail how you're going about doing that.

For a more personal example, it's not good enough to say "improve outcomes in people with addiction issues at risk of endocarditis." How do you do that? What is something you can measure? How long do you measure it? How many approaches are you doing at the same time? What resources do you have and how many people can you recruit?

For making a successful game, it takes some research to figure out what people get out of it. How do the papers, pens, books, and dice interact to create a "fun" experience. How reproduceable is that? How many personality types can we appeal to? Is "personality" even that relevant? Lots of questions to ask and things to measure.


Thanks.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, statistics is a field of study for a reason.

But, since we lack those resources, our conclusions are far more suspect. But, when you do something with the goal of reducing endocarditis, and endocarditis is reduced for several years, then, it's not totally unreasonable to think that what you did is reducing endocarditis. It might not be right. There absolutely might be other causes, and that would need to be ascertained. But, at the end of the day, it's not totally implausible that if you did X and Y resulted, then it's entirely possible that X caused Y. Not certain, of course, but possible.

Now, since we're all basically reading tea leaves here as we have very little actual information, it's not terribly unreasonable to think that since WotC had the goal of "approachable by a wide audience" and then they have indeed achieved a VERY wide audience - a much wider audience than D&D has ever had previously - then it's plausible, at least in my mind, that they achieved their intended design goals.

 

[tetrasodium]

Regardless of how unwieldy one feels Thac0 was, it is definitely more unwieldy than necessary. Doing it that way is more complicated than how we're doing it now, and that complication doesn't actually add anything. Often in an argument between more complicated and streamlined rules, it is a trade-off in a sense that the complication has some actual purpose, and then we need to decide whether it is worth the difficulty. But that's not the case here, we just need to decide whether we want to do things in more difficult way for no gain, and I think to most people the answer is an obvious "hell no!" So I'd say Thac0 is just a bad mechanic and good riddance!

This comes up s lot when speaking of the ills of thac0 but it's kind of a misrepresentation of how it worked in play. I think that it's critical to remember that at the table THAC0 was a two part thing with one of those parts existing on the sheet.

-full sheet from google search.​

While the math may be different in irrelevant ways, everything on that sheet side component is still on the sheet except that it's all over and needs to be assembled then calculated after each die roll. I have trouble even imagining how a case could be made to support the idea of "I rolled xx so [at xx and read the number yy above/below], does yy hit?" Is capable of being more "unwieldy" than "I rolled xx plus N from my weapon plus y from proficiency plus x from my attribute, does yy hit?".

Both methods do similar math except one does it during the downtime of leveling up or whenever and already has the results ready to after glancing at any die roll while the other saves a minute or two at level up and adds the time to assemble then calculate the relevant bits after every roll

 

[Mecheon]

On the Thac0 I think its also worth noting that uh, hi, I got into this all in my teens and in my teens? 3E and 3.5E were the active games and the OSR didn't even exist. Thac0 was basically dead as far as folks concerned

I have trouble even imagining how a case could be made to support the idea of "I rolled xx so [at xx and read the number yy above/below], does yy hit?" Is capable of being more "unwieldy" than "I rolled xx plus N from my weapon plus y from proficiency plus x from my attribute, does yy hit?".

Its the other side of things that's the problem. Its much easier to go "Yeah he's got an armor class of X" and know that your roll plus your advantages need to add up to be 16 or higher to hit. Its just simpler to do that rather than add a whole seperate other subtraction into things that just makes it more messy and means the armor class kind of becomes meaningless as a guide of "how armored is this thing"

Plus, well, folks these days are likely to have experience with games after all, and in basically all games armor starts at 0 and the more armor you get, it goes up. That's exactly how Thac0 doesn't work, but anyone who's played any fantasy RPG in the last 20 years is going to assume Armor 0 means you're unarmored and Armor 6 means you're more highly armored, which isn't the case. Hence why in Skyrim you can get around 144 if you go full daedric, my FFXIV warrior presently has 5,976 armor for both physical and magical, and my Warcraft dwarf has 52,092 armor

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This comes up s lot when speaking of the ills of thac0 but it's kind of a misrepresentation of how it worked in play. I think that it's critical to remember that at the table THAC0 was a two part thing with one of those parts existing on the sheet.

View attachment 383635

-full sheet from google search.​

While the math may be different in irrelevant ways, everything on that sheet side component is still on the sheet except that it's all over and needs to be assembled then calculated after each die roll. I have trouble even imagining how a case could be made to support the idea of "I rolled xx so [at xx and read the number yy above/below], does yy hit?" Is capable of being more "unwieldy" than "I rolled xx plus N from my weapon plus y from proficiency plus x from my attribute, does yy hit?".

Both methods do similar math except one does it during the downtime of leveling up or whenever and already has the results ready to after glancing at any die roll while the other saves a minute or two at level up and adds the time to assemble then calculate the relevant bits after every roll

Because the former needs that prewritten chart to function smoothly whilst the latter doesn’t. You could just as easily use similar chart with the latter too, but people usually don’t as it is intuitive enough without it. And of course you don’t separately add proficiency, ability, etc each time, you’ve those precalculated into one attack bonus already.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because the former needs that prewritten chart to function smoothly whilst the latter doesn’t. You could just as easily use similar chart with the latter too, but people usually don’t as it is intuitive enough without it. And of course you don’t separately add proficiency, ability, etc each time, you’ve those precalculated into one attack bonus already.

Exceptthe latter would unquestionably run more smoothly and be less "cumbersome" if that prewritten chart were present.
The bonuses don't change that often and when they do it tends to be a low value like ±1d4 or something in that range. In such a case the player can simply start with a box ±1d4 to the left or right of the die roll.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exceptthe latter would unquestionably run more smoothly and be less "cumbersome" if that prewritten chart were present.
The bonuses don't change that often and when they do it tends to be a low value like ±1d4 or something in that range. In such a case the player can simply start with a box ±1d4 to the left or right of the die roll.

I don’t agree. It is far from clear that consulting a chart is quicker and smoother than doing some trivial maths.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don’t agree. It is far from clear that consulting a chart is quicker and smoother than doing some trivial maths.

The claim wasn't which was "quicker". You claimed that one was more "cumbersome" than the other or that one is and the other is not. So far all you've demonstrated is that both have some degree of "cumbersome" elements and that the difference is if they are cumbersome after every single attack roll or not. You aren't tackling how one is more or less "cumbersome" than the other.

Since these discussions always (and have already) go into talk of math capabilities of players and burden of math on players ill refute your "trivial maths" claim with a great YouTube skit demonstrating the range of that triviality and point out that the on character sheet table saved the rest of the table from needing to sit through it in both cases.

 

[ezo]

Doing it that way is more complicated than how we're doing it now

True, in 5E. 3E, even with ascending AC, was often more complicated than AD&D due to the plethora of bonuses and modifiers that became commonplace IME.

Because the former needs that prewritten chart to function smoothly whilst the latter doesn’t.

No, it didn't need the chart. In fact, THAC0 didn't use the chart. The chart is AD&D from the to hit tables, not THAC0.

Proficiency "bonus" wasn't a thing to add. The to hit tables changed about once every three to four levels and was done (as written) during downtime at level up. Other bonuses were low and rare, basically STR/DEX if you had 16+ and then any bonus for a magic weapon. That's it as far as the constant bonuses. Situtational bonuses came up once in a while, depending on how often the DM incorporated them.

It is far from clear that consulting a chart is quicker and smoother than doing some trivial maths.

Those "trivial maths" that you might find trivial still give players nowadays issues in 5E. You rolled a 13 with +8 bonus isn't the automatic 21 many people here on EnWorld like to think it is. I don't know why and I will make no claims as to the cause, but for some reason younger players seem to have more problems using ascending d20s then I recall having issues before. Perhaps a large part of that is edition bias? Or how kids are taught, or other problems they have? I have no idea really--it could be a combination of factors as well.

And the thing is, because the bonuses were so small in early editions (particularlly Basic and 1E), often you didn't have to add--you could count using the table (in the book or using the chart on the character sheet. For example, if I am a 5th-level Cleric, I can look up my to hit numbers when I level and record them on the sheet. I have a +1 weapon and +1 for bless in a battle.

I roll a 12 on the die, I can literally count two spaces to the right for my +2 bonus and know I hit AC 4.
Alternately, I can roll 12 and add +2 for a 14, and look up the 14 if doing the math is easy for me.

When THAC0 was adopted, the idea of hiding the AC of the target was basically gone from the game IME. In the above example. my cleric's THAC0 is 18. I know I have a +2, so my adjusted THAC0 is 16. The DM tells me I am attacking an AC 5 creature, and simple subtraction tells me I need to roll an 11 to hit. I do the math ONCE and I know my number for the battle.

In d20 ascending terms, THAC0 and to hit tables are replaced by another bonus, my base attack bonus. Continuing the above example, it is +2 (the difference between needing a 10 to hit AC 10 and the 8 recorded in the table). For 5E, this is the universal proficiency bonus; in 3E it was variable depending on class.

Continuing the example, my "d20 PC" would have a total +4 bonus (+1 weapon, +1 bless). The AC 5 creature in AD&D is redefined to AC 15. I roll, add my +4, and if the total is 15 or higher I hit. But now, I have to do the math every time.

So, which is simpler?

Having an adjusted THAC0 and doing subtraction ONCE to find a "to hit" number, OR having an attack bonus total which is added every time I roll an attack to see if I hit?

Obviously this is entirely dependent on the person--different people think different ways and learn different ways. I don't truly see one system as "superior" to the other. I think the ascending AC system works better in 5E than in 3E due to the simpler mechanics, however, it is due to the simpler design of 5E, not the asecending AC mechanic itself.

Personally, growing up with to hit tables and THAC0, I still do the substraction to find the to hit number when playing 5E and don't do the addition each time I attack.

 

[ezo]

The claim wasn't which was "quicker". You claimed that one was more "cumbersome" than the other or that one is and the other is not. So far all you've demonstrated is that both have some degree of "cumbersome" elements and that the difference is if they are cumbersome after every single attack roll or not. You aren't tackling how one is more or less "cumbersome" than the other.

Since these discussions always (and have already) go into talk of math capabilities of players and burden of math on players ill refute your "trivial maths" claim with a great YouTube skit demonstrating the range of that triviality and point out that the on character sheet table saved the rest of the table from needing to sit through it in both cases.

LOL OMG this is EXACTLY how some of my players ARE!!! Like, no kidding.

And I really, really wish it wasn't the case...

 

[Voadam]

This comes up s lot when speaking of the ills of thac0 but it's kind of a misrepresentation of how it worked in play. I think that it's critical to remember that at the table THAC0 was a two part thing with one of those parts existing on the sheet.

View attachment 383635

-full sheet from google search.​

While the math may be different in irrelevant ways, everything on that sheet side component is still on the sheet except that it's all over and needs to be assembled then calculated after each die roll. I have trouble even imagining how a case could be made to support the idea of "I rolled xx so [at xx and read the number yy above/below], does yy hit?" Is capable of being more "unwieldy" than "I rolled xx plus N from my weapon plus y from proficiency plus x from my attribute, does yy hit?".

Both methods do similar math except one does it during the downtime of leveling up or whenever and already has the results ready to after glancing at any die roll while the other saves a minute or two at level up and adds the time to assemble then calculate the relevant bits after every roll

If you had one of those later 1e character sheets.

1e did not even provide the PCs with the THACO chart (and the saving throws chart too) to write down those numbers, it was hidden away as secret DM knowledge in the DMG. It presented the info in the DMG as stuff to be kept secret from the PCs.

If you did keep it secret it presented the mechanics as a behind the scenes thing for the DM to resolve actions and for the players to stay more immersively in character by not considering every such mechanic.

The 1e DM screen had this info on the DM only facing side as well.

The sheets were developed later in 1e for those who wanted to make things easier to resolve at the table and take some of the burden off of the DM during combat.

1981 B/X also allowed THACO and saves to be player info and were included in the sample character.

But in 1e the reference in the PH is page 105 which says the DM has the chart:

Attack and Saving Throw Matrices:
Your DM has matrices for each class of character by level groups, showing the scores required to hit the various sorts of armor and armor classifications. Normal men such as men-at-arms are always considered at level 0. Monsters are classed by their hit dice. All creatures use the same saving throw matrices; the modifier is relative class, i.e. fighter, thief, etc. Items save on a special matrix.

Also a sentence in each class which only show relative differences.

"Clerics have nearly as good a prospect of success in melee combat as fighters (the best in such situations). They move upwards in combat ability in steps consisting of three ability levels."

"Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate. They have the most advantageous combat table and generally have good saving throw (q.v.) possibilities as well."

"While they have mighty spells of offensive, defensive, and informational nature, magic-users are very weak in combat. They have but four-sided dice (d4) to determine how many hit points of damage they can withstand, and magic-users have the least favorable table and progression as regards missile and melee combat."

"Although they fight only slightly more effectively than do magic-users, they are able to use stealth in combat most effectively by back stabbing."