Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9844297" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Please please please do not. Do not give that credibility. We do this every time we discuss TSR-style (lower=better) AC. We do this every time we discuss ThAC0. We do this every time someone mentions tracking GURPS characters with a spreadsheet. We do this every time someone mentions Hero System character point costs (summing fractional values and then applying a ratio of those fractions to a total). We get it, it is simple math under 100, and/or schoolchild age 9-11 math concepts like negative numbers or multiplying/dividing fractions and thus 'aren't hard.' It's the low-effort explanation for what is going on  that just compares when root function task involved was learned and ignoring any and all other framing. An educator or psychologist (or someone who's managed self-described math-brilliant people for 20+ years) would I think have a more nuanced analysis. I've seen 40+ years of gamers go back and forth over optimal (/accessible) rules complexity. The ones that support the more-math-convoluted mechanics are not, consistently, the ones who are smarter/better at math (as noted, it is simple math under 100/grade school mechanisms). It is about attention, application in the moment, tracking of different moving pieces, and more than anything else, investment. I, for one, have no problem with ThAC0 (and I have been relatively vocal about my TBI, and am not in the running for smartest person here). However, every time I use the 1e weapon vs. armor I have to look at the AC 2 column and go 'okay, Gary knew maces and picks and such were good vs. plate, and these get pluses, so it is a bonus to the attacker's roll' to determine where that number goes and in which direction. Why? Because my brain declines to internalize it (because it is 1e only and didn't even get used in 90% of the 1e games I've played). I think nearly every time, in the wild, I've always seen people verbalize framing along the lines of 'weapon/strength/specialization bonuses total +4, I rolled a 12 (totaling 16) and my ThAC0 is 18, I hit a (18-16) 2 AC.'An interesting division. By that framing, much of what I've opined about story would fall under narrative ('it's just what's happened in the game.'). I wonder if that's his distinction, or if there is some weight to that. Not really interested in a war of dictionary references, but it would be interesting to look further into the peer literature or the like. Some of them do. But others just have 'narrative mechanics' like you can spend points to make one of the guards an old school chum. It is another thing that exists on a spectrum and people can tweak to match their preferences.</blockquote>

Verification