Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[Numion]

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.

I just provided an example where the tables don't contain all the information, but has to be calculated.

In addition the whole system was a bit wonky. In maneuvers, you first rolled on the chart, then you got a number you had to roll under (percentage chance for success). Two rolls when one would've been enough. Well, if you didn't fall into a braindead coma when attempting to concentrate

Then again, Rolemaster is good in that damage and to hit are rolled in one roll - except for the criticals that happen quite often. Indeed a strike that doesn't critical is considered, in our group, really a miss.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing it and all, but the game is 110% bonkers when it comes to mechanics. It's just fun to roll the criticals and hope for that double six

 

[mhacdebhandia]

For the love of God, the d20 method is so superior.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If your inexperianced, yes, 1E is much easier to start playing then 3E (wading through feats and skills, gods and God knows what else). In 1E all you really have to do is read a little, and keep track of your stuff and HPs. Its the ultimate in "playing make believe".

No, it's not.

Playing make believe is the ultimate in playing make believe, if you mean ultimate in the sense of 'the purest expression of the activity.'

Improv theater (formalized playing make believe with meta rules and a social contract to guide the process and help newbies understand it) could be described as the ultimate in playing make believe, in that they take the process, formalize and codify it without essentially changing the activity.

RPGs with a strong immersionist bent, which focus their mechanics on getting the players in character and reward getting and staying there, as opposed to rewarding players for canny knowledge of the system, could perhaps be described as the ultimate in playing make believe.

No version of D&D has been any of those three things. OD&D began as a one player/one character extension to a tabletop wargame, adding in the concept of role-playing Game as it developed out of Chainmail; D&D has never strayed far from that model. At no point have the rules, hidden or otherwise, provided tangible rewards for playing make believe - merely nebulous guidelines regarding roleplaying XP. Meanwhile, pages upon pages are devoted to spells whose primary function is combat, classes whose abilities are balanced, if at all, around combat, monsters - of which many are essentially either living traps or combat machines - and the actual rules to resolve combat, including to-hit charts and the d20 mechanic alike. The existence of that information is an enticement to use it (a reward for the player for the tactical/combative style), and knowledge of it brings success within that style (a reward for the character and thus reinforcement of the player's metagaming).

 

[3catcircus]

The tables in d20 are all formulaically derived. BAB is either Level, .75*Level, or 5.*Level. Saves are either 2+.5*level or .333*level. So... If I don't want to, I don't have to look at the table.

Later
silver

True, but you could easily work backwards from the tables and come up with the formulas for 1e. Granted, they probably aren't going to be nice one-variable linear equations...

 

[3catcircus]

First, my experience greatly contradicts this claim.

But even if it were accurate, if you are going to celebrate removal of options as a means of gaining speed in game play, then why stop there? Why not just play rock paper scissors and declare a winner that way?

Who said that using tables and/or 1e removed options? You could, for example, tell the DM that you are winding up to take a grand-slam hit on your next attack, subtract an as-decided-by-the-DM-as-appropriate number from your roll, add same to the damage and call it a power attack.

Likewise, the DM could decide that if a guy runs past you on his way to attack someone else, you get a free swing on him.

The difference between 3e and 1e here isn't about options, it is about *how* a mechanic is perceived. Tables vs. formulas. Adding a negative or subtracting a positive. The data is the same in the end.

 

[3catcircus]

I just provided an example where the tables don't contain all the information, but has to be calculated.

In addition the whole system was a bit wonky. In maneuvers, you first rolled on the chart, then you got a number you had to roll under (percentage chance for success). Two rolls when one would've been enough. Well, if you didn't fall into a braindead coma when attempting to concentrate

Then again, Rolemaster is good in that damage and to hit are rolled in one roll - except for the criticals that happen quite often. Indeed a strike that doesn't critical is considered, in our group, really a miss.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing it and all, but the game is 110% bonkers when it comes to mechanics. It's just fun to roll the criticals and hope for that double six

Give HARP a chance if you like RM. All of the goodness, less of the headache.

 

[3catcircus]

No, it's not.

Playing make believe is the ultimate in playing make believe, if you mean ultimate in the sense of 'the purest expression of the activity.'

Improv theater (formalized playing make believe with meta rules and a social contract to guide the process and help newbies understand it) could be described as the ultimate in playing make believe, in that they take the process, formalize and codify it without essentially changing the activity.

RPGs with a strong immersionist bent, which focus their mechanics on getting the players in character and reward getting and staying there, as opposed to rewarding players for canny knowledge of the system, could perhaps be described as the ultimate in playing make believe.

No version of D&D has been any of those three things. OD&D began as a one player/one character extension to a tabletop wargame, adding in the concept of role-playing Game as it developed out of Chainmail; D&D has never strayed far from that model. At no point have the rules, hidden or otherwise, provided tangible rewards for playing make believe - merely nebulous guidelines regarding roleplaying XP. Meanwhile, pages upon pages are devoted to spells whose primary function is combat, classes whose abilities are balanced, if at all, around combat, monsters - of which many are essentially either living traps or combat machines - and the actual rules to resolve combat, including to-hit charts and the d20 mechanic alike. The existence of that information is an enticement to use it (a reward for the player for the tactical/combative style), and knowledge of it brings success within that style (a reward for the character and thus reinforcement of the player's metagaming).

Thank goodness someone finally pointed this out in this thread.

Additionally, I'd go one further and argue that, in general, the genre and style of play often are expressed in the design of the mechanics.

Gritty games are usually more deadly than fantastic games in their combat (one-shot, one-kill possibilities) and generally try to do a better job of modeling real-life. Phoenix Command is an example of trying to model real firearms properly.

I'm not saying that one style is better than another, but you have to be prepared to take the mechanics with the genre.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Agreed.

It could be that there is something to be said for the raw simplicity of 1E if your players are all "I don't want to know the rules. Just tell me what dice to roll." But for the most part the people I've gamed with have wanted to have an understanding of the rules rather than have the DM handle it all.

In my (3.5E) Midwood campaign, we've had several players ask to not have to worry about the rules. It hasn't been a problem for them.

D&D is as complicated as the group wants it to be.

 

[dcas]

For the love of God, the d20 method is so superior.

I'm convinced!

 

[RFisher]

So, why make a game that was supposed to be more accessable to the general public have a more complex system. Why not keep it the same complexity as OD&D for instance?

He did...at his table!

Customers were contacting TSR requesting rulings on things EGG didn't see as needing rulings from them. So part of the complexity in AD&D is a response to customers wanting more complexity.

There were also advocates in LG for probably every option in the D&D supplements. (& more!) Probably nobody used everything, but every thing was used by somebody. EGG included everything in AD&D because he wanted to appeal to/please everyone. He didn't expect everyone to use everything. He certainly didn't.

At least, that's the impression I've gotten from some things said by some people who used work at TSR. & I'm sure there were more factors, but I think those are two of them.

Additionally, I'd go one further and argue that, in general, the genre and style of play often are expressed in the design of the mechanics.

I'd go one further & say that it's a rare coincidence when a game's mechanics actually fit the genre & style of play it claims. (^_^)