D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[ezo]

So plus doesn't mean plus, but minus means minus! Perfectly clear!

What minus means minus? For armor? Yeah, I don't think so. It meant a worsening of AC. Did you even know how the system worked? Maybe you were one of the few who struggled with it back then??

Wait. People have issues with ascending AC? Does not compute.

Yep, all the time. Nearly every session.

I have no issue with some additional complexity in rules if it serves a purpose. The problem with THAC0 is that there was significant additional complexity with no added value.

It isn't additional complexity. It is just the other direction than ascending AC. Even if you feel there as additional complexity, it was hardly significant IMO. YMMV, of course.

It's also pretty condescending to say since you personally didn't have a problem with it there was no downside. People used to have to wash their clothes by hand with a tub and washboard because there was no other option. So I guess a modern washing machine isn't really better or a labor saving device, it's just different.

No, it isn't condescending at all. I said no one I knew had issue with it. Other people claim either they did or knew people who did. I don't doubt their word. I never personally saw a downside to it, no. But, that was my personal experience.

I felt it was easier if you just didn't think about the "+", the sign, too much. If in universe the modifier makes you better, it makes you better. If worse, it makes you worse. Trying to think it through as "a THACO of 15 with a plus three sword means 15 + (-3) or 15 - (+3) or whatever just confuses things.

You could do it either way and, again, I never found it confusing or knew anyone personally who ever expressed confusion about it.

THAC0 was to determine the number you needed to roll to hit an AC. If you had THAC0 15, and attacked AC 5, you needed a 10 on the attack roll. Now, you have a +3 from STR, specialization, or magic weapon say. You can either adjust the number you need to hit (10 becomes 7) OR add it to the roll when you rolled (I rolled an 8, +3, is 11 so hit since I needed a 10). Most people just added the +3 to the roll each time, which is why all those sorts of modifiers where "to hit" modifiers.

Works either way and was just a matter of what you were most comfortable doing.

 

[The Firebird]

The specific criticism that was made was that there is a history of people, including WotC, treating grognards poorly.

When pressed for examples of WotC treating grognards poorly (an extraordinary claim as the 5e designers are grognards themselves), only two examples were given:

• THAC0 the clown in Witchlight;
• the gnome in 4e introduction videos.

THAT is why @Hussar writes:

Naturally, the complaints ignore all the Easter eggs included for older gamers in 5e products, from Warduke in Witchlight, to the D&D cartoon in the PHB2024 and DMG2024.

It's not true that only two examples were given. Others included language surrounding changes to the lore and explicit statements from folks on the D&D design team that grognards were not worth listening to.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the first game I played with ascending AC (well, physical defense) was FASA's Earthdawn, and it was glorious.

Man Earthdawn, so close to greatness, solved so many of D&D's conceptual issues, married fiction and rules far better than D&D did until 4E (still better than that, but like, 4E was a lot closer), but so many of the actual rules were needlessly convoluted and clunky. FASA should have just adapted Shadowrun's basic rules structure.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe you were one of the few who struggled with it back then??

No, it isn't condescending at all.

I think that's pretty condescending, actually.

Other people claim either they did or knew people who did. I don't doubt their word. I never personally saw a downside to it, no. But, that was my personal experience.

You can't have it both ways.

Either it's solely your personal experience and you didn't know anyone at all who had issues with THAC0, so your "few" comment makes no sense, or you believe other people, pretty much all of whom are saying "THAC0 wasn't great" or "We had problems with THAC0", and in that case your "few" comment also makes no sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fortunately, modern D&D does not use XP for GP as a mechanic.

The point I’m making is that the people claiming « modern D&D doesn’t cater to all playstyles » are conveniently forgetting that neither did older D&D.

Fair enough.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not true that only two examples were given. Others included language surrounding changes to the lore and explicit statements from folks on the D&D design team that grognards were not worth listening to.

I don't think you can provide quotes to back up either of these claims, and further, I'd suggest neither of them actually happened. Rather people's noses got put out of joint by straightforward statements very similar to the ones made about 5E, like that 5E's canon is 5E books, not previous books.

The real screw-up wasn't anything like that, it was that the original 4E advertisement was bizarrely patronising towards people playing previous editions, and implied they were all kind of bad and soon to be replaced by a new and better edition (as a bonus, the commercial featured D&D software which didn't exist at the time or indeed for several years thereafter).

That very bad advert, which was also inexplicably voiced by someone seemingly doing "Generic Snooty European accent" (as per The Simpsons) set the tone, and caused people to get unreasonably upset but otherwise-innocuous statements (again, many of which have been made re: 5E without much controversy).

 

[ezo]

I think that's pretty condescending, actually.

Whatever...

(now, that's condescending... )

You can't have it both ways.

Either it's solely your personal experience and you didn't know anyone at all who had issues with THAC0, so your "few" comment makes no sense, or you believe other people, pretty much all of whom are saying "THAC0 wasn't great" or "We had problems with THAC0", and in that case your "few" comment also makes no sense.

What are you even talking about?? I never had problems with it, don't know anyone personally who ever did (or at least never expressed an issue with it...), but don't claim that is a universal experience and believe people when they say "I had an issue with it" or "I knew people who did".

You know what... nevermind.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't think you can provide quotes to back up either of these claims, and further, I'd suggest neither of them actually happened. Rather people's noses got put out of joint by straightforward statements very similar to the ones made about 5E, like that 5E's canon is 5E books, not previous books.

In the first case, regarding claims about grognards not worth listening to (I'll just include just a small part of relevant posts to keep the post length reasonable). Also limiting this to my posts because I remember those best.

Consider the most recent dust up with the 50th anniversary book, from someone who is currently a "senior designer/product lead" for D&D:

The quote is from Jason Tondro. His personal page says that he is a "a Senior Designer and project lead on the Dungeons & Dragons team". His credits include the Deck of Many Things. For example, he writes:

The second, addressing claims about the lore:

I think that is a very black and white depiction. But as I mentioned in earlier posts, I think there is a temptation to present these things as black and white so that people with the wrong views can be made unwelcome without much more thought. And I don't think it wrestles with how this comes across to folks who have a bit more nuance in their opinions.

But being wrong about whether or not the changes are necessary is a much lesser offense than thinking the changes make the game more inclusive and opposing them on those grounds.

That said, they could have done a better job of making this case. I think its reasonable to expect people who liked the older content to feel, "oh, are you saying that you think I'm a bad person? That my fun is bad and exclusionary?"

Statements putting the clown argument in a broader context:

I don't think the text about the clown is that bad. But I think folks who saw themselves in it did so because there is a history of people, including WotC, treating them as such. As the end of this post nicely illustrates.

The strong version of the claim here is not "there is a nefarious plot to attack a section of players". It's not a nefarious plot; it's just a general atmosphere wherein this section of players is considered backwards or guilty by association or not worth our time.

 

[TiQuinn]

What minus means minus? For armor? Yeah, I don't think so. It meant a worsening of AC. Did you even know how the system worked? Maybe you were one of the few who struggled with it back then??

A +2 AC Bonus meant you subtracted two from the armor class, so a Chainmail (normally AC 5) with a +2 bonus (how it was written in stat blocks) would have AC 3.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the first case, regarding claims about grognards not worth listening to (I'll just include just a small part of relevant posts to keep the post length reasonable). Also limiting this to my posts because I remember those best.

I dunno if you messed something up but I'm not seeing any quote about hating grognards there.

The rest it looks like maybe you're trying to quote responses to someone who maybe I have on ignore - either that or I'm not getting it.

I do think the quote button maybe have been overloaded by whatever you're doing lol.