Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[Psion]

The d20 mechanic *is* a table-based mechanic. BAB is in a table for each class.

I think you are being pedantic. You don't refer to the table in play. This is the very reason THAC0 was invented.

 

[FireLance]

Tables are necessary when there is no formula, or the formula is inconsistent (e.g. wealth per level, experience points).

When there is a consistent formula, the need for tables varies inversely with how quickly your group can do math.

I'm an economist, and I game with an engineer and a math teacher, so we don't use tables for attack rolls and saving throws. It's actually faster for us to do the math in our heads than to look up the result in a table.

 

[dcas]

I prefer tables for saving throws since they are abstract rather than concrete . . . there is no reason that reflexes should be at all related to how well one avoids area of effect spells.

As far as combat is concerned, whatever means less work for me as GM is what is best.

 

[Wormwood]

That's overstating the case.

Not true. I said that I had abandoned D&D's system, not table-based resolution systems in general.

For example, I love TSR's Marvel Superheroes to this very day, and would gladly play a game tomorrow. But I have no interest in referencing the combat matrices in my old DMG for any reason.

 

[Turjan]

The fewer charts that must be consulted during a fight, the better. I find it funny that people complain about the complexity of 3E combat one second and then complain about the lack of charts to consult the next.

I think that this is a misconception. More tables doesn't equal more complexity. Rolemaster uses tons of tables but isn't very complex. D&D 3.5 is much more complex even though it doesn't use tables during combat.

This said, I prefer the d20 way. I don't want to look up stuff on tables during the game, at least nothing so basic as combat.

 

[Numion]

Which system is slower and more complicated?

Maybe 3E.

1e is way way way faster and less complex than d20 *once you become proficient at using the tables*. No skill checks, no feats that slow down combat, etc. In fact, the speed of d20 is based upon the speed of the slowest player since every player has to do the calculations. In 1e, the speed of the game is based upon the speed of the DM.

1E is somewhat faster with a competent DM. I was just saying that tx7642 advocated a slower and more complicated resolution system (charts and tables vs. d20), but then switched to preaching the virtues of a less complicated system. I was just confused about what he's advocating.

 

[Numion]

I think that this is a misconception. More tables doesn't equal more complexity. Rolemaster uses tons of tables but isn't very complex. D&D 3.5 is much more complex even though it doesn't use tables during combat.

Rolemaster (Rulemonster, Chartmaster) is very complicated IMHO. It was a nightmare when you rolled off the charts (150+). You had to divide the result-150 by the number of same results at the top of the chart and. .. ugh.

 

[diaglo]

But I have no interest in referencing the combat matrices in my old DMG for any reason.

you didn't have it memorized?

shoot after just a few short sessions it was pretty much not needed for any of the guys in my group.

and we used weapon vs armor type too.

 

[WizarDru]

Within 5 minutes she'd roled her character, read her class (fighter) and race (dwarf). Thats all she needed to know as a player. No skills, no feats, and no need to figure out what bonuses to apply to her sheet (heck she didn't even have to worry about movement rates or incomberance, the DM did all of that).

As others have mentioned, if the DM does all the heavy lifting, it really doesn't matter what system you're using. If you change this example to 3.x, then all you need to do is say, "the DM assigned her the sample fighter package from the PHB fighter entry, let her choose a different weapon and she had a character in five minutes."

The D20 system just switches that complete newby experiance a little. players seem more qued in.

D&D 3.X moves the onus of the game core mechanics from combination of DMG/PHB to just the PHB. Players are clued into the game much earlier because they have those numbers directly in front of them from day one, instead of figuring them out eventually. Gaming by obscurity doesn't work for more than a short while. It means that there can be only one DM in any gaming group (a concept that EGG, Arneson and the game's original players themselves didn't practice or follow) and he must jealously guard that information from player knowledge.

Assuming he can do this, another reason that the DM-only table approach slows the game down: it creates a bottleneck. If only the DM can determine whether something has succeeded or failed and is the only one consulting the chart, combat must be entirely facilitated through him. In 3.x, the players can work the math themselves or with the DM to resolve those numbers, working only from the given target number.

While I liked Rolemaster, back in the day it easily got the nickname "Chartmaster" due to the large preponderance of charts in that game. Some believed the charts were created merely for their own sake, to create the illusion of depth. Having to identify weapon or damage-type, then go to a specific chart, roll and then possibly consult further charts from cross-indexing (go to the super-secret "you hit a jugular" table) was fun in its way, but I don't know that I'd say that it sped play up.

I'm sure a group that had totally internalized the system could move about the same speed as one that used dice and a formula...but I think the bar for where they plateau at system mastery is much higher for the chart-based method than the simple formula.

I think that this is a misconception. More tables doesn't equal more complexity. Rolemaster uses tons of tables but isn't very complex. D&D 3.5 is much more complex even though it doesn't use tables during combat.

 

[Turjan]

Rolemaster (Rulemonster, Chartmaster) is very complicated IMHO. It was a nightmare when you rolled off the charts (150+). You had to divide the result-150 by the number of same results at the top of the chart and. .. ugh.

Tedious is not the same as complex. The idea behind tables is that they basically contain all the information. You perform a few basic tasks and then simply follow the tables. You don't have to learn many formulas or consider lots of different subsystems, like in D&D 3.x.

Please, don't see this as an attempt to promote Rolemaster. I hate those tables.