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

[ezo]

you can like it or not, sales have nothing to do with that so as an argument it is a non sequitur.

I know, but people like to express their opinion that because sales are good, the game is great, etc. As I said, "great" is a matter of opinion (based on preferences, experiences, etc.).

What you cannot do is say that no one buys it, because the sales do contradict that

Sure, I never would.

 

[mamba]

The earth is flat isn't an opinion though. That is a claim about the truth of the world (and it can be tested).

so you just do not call things that people believe to be true opinions then?

 

[The Sigil]

so you just do not call things that people believe to be true opinions then?

I’ll bite.


“Believe” is only possible when there is effectively no way to discover whether or not an objective fact is involved. Opinions are a subset of belief.

If I claim apples taste better than oranges and you believe oranges taste better, that is a difference of belief or opinion, as there is no objective standard.

If you claim the distance between London, England and New York, US is 5570 km and I believe the distance is 2000 km, this is not a difference of belief of opinion. This is one (or possibly both) of us being factually incorrect. No matter how hard I believe it to be 2000 km, I will simply be wrong. I do not hold a “different opinion” equally as valid as your claim the distance is 5570 km, I hold a mistaken belief, and it should be dismissed as factually incorrect.

Things that people believe to be true may be:

• Factually correct
• Factually incorrect
• subjective opinions

But not more than one of those can apply, and if it is possible to prove conclusively something is factually correct or incorrect there is no room for opinion or belief around that subject.

In this case, “the earth is flat” is a statement that can be conclusively proven true or false and there is no way this view may be something on which you are allowed to appeal to a belief or opinion.

 

[CellarHeroes]

As far as THAC0 is concerned, I am an educator and mathematician. I know for most people adding is easier than subtracting, especially when you get into negative numbers like descending AC could. But does that make Ascending AC "better" just because it is easier? Not IMO. It is just a different system to accomplish the same goal. I mean, one of the reasons I am so good with maths is because I played D&D from a young age on. I know kids who learned to understand negative numbers back in the 80's because of D&D and descending AC.

There are many times in life when easier is not better. Look at the cartoon you just posted. Is it easier to buy vegetables instead of growing your own? Certainly. "Better" is in ethe eye of the beholder. More convenient? Sure. I would agree with that. And Ascending AC is more convenient for many people, but "better".... that is a matter of opinion.

I am definitely in the camp that neither is better, they're just different.

When I was first introduced to D&D's ascending AC in 3e, I thought "Oh, this will be easier". Then it didn't take long for me to start encountering AC 35 with an attack bonus of +25...but sometimes the AC was 42 and the attack bonus was +32, depending on the time of day and the what the opposition was. The math itself was simpler, but I felt the numbers were getting out of hand.

I like the smaller numbers and modifiers used with descending AC and THAC0. But I will never reject a game based on whether it's AAC or DAC.

 

[mamba]

“Believe” is only possible when there is effectively no way to discover whether or not an objective fact is involved. Opinions are a subset of belief.

so what would you call the position of someone who is convinced the Earth is flat then? I’d use opinion, you would call it a mistaken belief apparently.

I agree with the rest of your post, you just defined opinion in a way that means it is never about (currently available) facts, it can neither be confirmed nor contradicted by them, ever. If it could, it would not be an opinion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As far as THAC0 is concerned, I am an educator and mathematician. I know for most people adding is easier than subtracting, especially when you get into negative numbers like descending AC could. But does that make Ascending AC "better" just because it is easier? Not IMO. It is just a different system to accomplish the same goal. I mean, one of the reasons I am so good with maths is because I played D&D from a young age on. I know kids who learned to understand negative numbers back in the 80's because of D&D and descending AC.

I have long accepted Thac0 and descending AC are things of the past. But whenever I play 2E, I really enjoy this aspect of the game. I also enjoy roll under attributes. Part of it is just that the math feels more contained (and something like rolling under a 17, involves less math than say a skill roll where you are adding modifiers and trying to hit a target: attribute rolls and NWPs still had potential modifiers but they were generally small). I also agree that there was value in learning these things. I am definitely not a math person, but I will say what paltry math skills I have, improved considerably having to do things like subtraction in my head during play.

 

[billd91]

I am definitely in the camp that neither is better, they're just different.

When I was first introduced to D&D's ascending AC in 3e, I thought "Oh, this will be easier". Then it didn't take long for me to start encountering AC 35 with an attack bonus of +25...but sometimes the AC was 42 and the attack bonus was +32, depending on the time of day and the what the opposition was. The math itself was simpler, but I felt the numbers were getting out of hand.

I like the smaller numbers and modifiers used with descending AC and THAC0. But I will never reject a game based on whether it's AAC or DAC.

Well, ascending AC is easier. The trouble was it came with additions to the system that complicated things in 3e. 1) It came with open-ended modifiers and values - there was no upper limit to AC, nor to stats. That bloated the values that needed to be added. 2) It also came with varying base attack bonuses used to throttle how much multiple attacks affected expected damage instead of just managing attack rates with oddball attack rates like 3/2 - so the attack value that needed to be added was changing mid attack routine.

4e fixed the issue of varying attack bonuses by manipulating expected damage other ways by defining the damage done with powers, but left the numeric bloat in system.

5e largely fixed the numeric bloat through bounded accuracy and limitations on practical AC values. So I'd argue that the system is finally firing on all cylinders with respect to ascending ACs and managing attack rolls.

 

[billd91]

The primary hot-bed of the 1e craze was colleges and universities. Seems like an ongoing error not to continue to focus on that age group as the editions go by.

Considering that the largest cohort playing is 20-24 even in the 2021 data, it may still be that it's the most active hot-bed. But I'd argue that anything catering to that age group wouldn't be all that different from the 15-19 year old cohort before it. Reading level isn't going to vary that much in the overall population. The appeal of included of "adult" themes is always going to vary by the individual and is best left to the individual table anyway.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Sorry, I completely disagree, if your opinion runs counter to the facts, then it is an idiotic opinion to have and you should change it. Opinions can very much be wrong, saying the Earth is flat is not equally valid as saying it is a sphere

I believe your example needs more context before we can determine if they are in fact opinions.

To piggyback your example, let's substitute Santa for the earth. Just because you know Santa isn't real doesn't give you the right to destroy a child's illusion because they are wrong does it?

If the opinion is factually wrong and is not affecting you why bother with a debate unless they are interested?

Isn't there an old saying about bees not wasting their time telling flys honey tastes better than poop?

 

[Staffan]

It all depends on what you want from your game. For instance…

As you yourself say, perhaps you want depth or granularity. I have friend who want rules for combat to have different damage types for bludgeoning, slashing, stabbing and then have armors who act differently against these damages just as in real life. He wants this complexity because he feels it enhances his game. It’s his opinion.

And that is complexity for a purpose. Whether you're getting a good deal on your complexity-for-depth or not is a matter of taste.

(Although I'll note that a system that treats a spear, a dagger, and a pick the same when it comes to penetrating armor might not actually have the depth you're looking for).

I just don’t agree. I have already stated that back in the days THAC0 confused me. Today I find it easy an actually quite enjoyable. I would probably have dropped this thread a long time ago though if I didn’t feel like some people were so set on questioning my enjoyment.

The thing with THAC0/descending AC is that it's additional complexity that doesn't serve a useful purpose. It just makes things more difficult. Is the difficulty increase huge? No, but it is definitely there.