Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dessert Nomad" data-source="post: 7526617" data-attributes="member: 6976536">This is pretty impressive, because it's hilariously wrong in multiple ways. There's already been a cite, that you agree with, that shows that "To Hit A.C. 0" was a term used in the 1e DMG. Your insistence that no one could possibly have abbreviated a term already in use to it's obvious acronym by ditching the o, ith, two periods, and spaces before TSR did it in 1989 is... rather dubious. I really did do such an incredibly mental leap, as did other people. I was just going to let the absurdity of this claim stand on it's own, but I found documentation that your claim is incorect on this very website. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?172142-Where-was-the-term-THACO-first-used" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?172142-Where-was-the-term-THACO-first-used</a> If I'm a liar, so are 4 pages of responders in that thread. The thread discusses the early use of THAC0, and points out that the term was actually used in a 1986 book and 1985 module, three and four years previous to the year you believe no one used it. Because the absurdity of this is amusing me, I will have to go check the 1985 module (I actually have it) and the Battlesystem rules if I still have them to see if they show a pre-1989 usage of the term. I may even post a pic of the use of THAC0 in a pre-1989 source just for the amusement value, since that thread pointed to several that I think I have (UK7, Battlesysyem, Dungeneers Survival Guide). But moving beyond the weird idea that no one could think of making an acronym before TSR did, the argument that I must not have played in 1e rules because I used an abbreviation that was invented in 1989 when talking about a game in 2018 simply doesn't make sense. Even if we accept your premise that no one but TSR could have come up with the acronym before 1989, the acronym is almost 30 years old now. The idea that no one would ever use newer terminology in an older game that they played is just weird. This is more really weird claims; 1e and every edition that came out after 1e coexist, including 4e. The idea that this is something that someone would argue about is just wierd; the only way they wouldn't coexist is if 1e somehow stopped existing. You don't have to use rules together to apply improved terminology from one game to another. And people don't need official approval to apply more modern terminology to older games; 'heavy armor' didn't actually exist as a category of equipment in 1e (AFAIR), but refering to 1e armors that correspond to what are today 'heavy armor' as 'heavy armor' is not unusual. I'll note again that you don't provide anything but alpha-nerd bluster to support your claim of what was typical for PCs. Your games may not have typically involved PCs with 2 magic items by level 5, but you actually offer absolutely nothing to support that your games were 'typical'. And I'm really unconcerned by what you're 'convinced' of, since you're 'convinced' or weird things like the idea that no one could have abbreviated "To Hit A.C. 0" to THAC0 before TSR published 2e in 1989. Side note: I never made the claim that 1e was easy compared to 5e. I claimed that one particular matchup (L5 characters vs purple worm) was much easier in 1e instead of 5e, on the basis of the singificant changes in the monster's stats over the years and lower party size in 5e vs 1e.I have repeatedly cited actual rules, and my 'assumptions' were 100% accurate because they're based on simple math. I never made the claim that THAC0 was the exact same as the tables in general, just that it gives the exact same resut for characters and monster at the levels in question against the ACs in question. The 'halfway intelligent' phrase was also in that same post.</blockquote>

Verification