Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[Numion]

I recently brought a new player into the game (the wife of a friend) who just sat down and started playing 1E. 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).

So you switch around from advocating a slower and more complicated system (charts and THAC0 vs. d20) ?

 

[Ranger REG]

So, one has to wonder, why didn't Gygax just use a D20 system to begin with (or something like it). Why create all these head aches over tables? Its not like D20 wasn't obvious ( infact to make the tables he'd have had to first developed a D20 system and then reverse engineer it).

Isn't that like asking why cavemen should be inventing a chariot rather than a wheel?

D&D was founded on the basics of wargames.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Yes, IMHO the new player is more in the dark in 1E because all they've read is their class and race description...period. They have some idea that as they train and go up they get some bonus but they don't know what. They also don't know the monster HPs.

If your "new" 1E players know stuff in the DMG, then they've been peeking. I know its unrealistic, but their not supposed to do this. When I first started playing I didn't see inside the DMG or MM for over a year (just saw bits and pieces shown to us by the DM).

I recently brought a new player into the game (the wife of a friend) who just sat down and started playing 1E. 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). Anyhow, she was a great player, and all she did was sit and imagine and role dice when told to. And that was the exact experiance I had back in 79' in my first game.

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

I don't see how any of that is edition specific. Other than having to pick feats at first level (a whopping 1...2 if you are human...3 for a human fighter) and some skills, the character generation is basically the same. As far as needing to worry about what bonuses etc, if the DM is going to do that work for a 1E game they can do that as well in 3E. And new players in a 1E game are just as likely to peek at the DMG or MM in a 3E game. In fact some of the first people I gamed with looked through the DMG and MM mere minutes after I finished DMing their first game (2ed AD&D for the record).

Additionally, what does any of that have to do with the use of charts? If you are suggesting that charts make it easier for the DM to handle the number-crunching for the player, I suggest that the d20 system is every bit as easy, if not easier.

 

[Rel]

I don't see how any of that is edition specific.

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.

 

[jeffh]

1st ed. did use THACo. Check the DMG monster appendix. It has THAC0 values for every creature.

Finally, someone other than me notices! I mention that every time I see someone try to claim THAC0 started in 2E, and it never seems to sink in with anyone.

 

[jeffh]

I prefer d20 to anything with a resolution table, thanks. Streamlined task resolution was the primary reason d20 brought me back to D&D after I had abandoned the old, hoary system in the early '90s.

That's overstating the case. There are very elegant table-based systems, such as the original DC Heroes (more recently sold as Blood of Heroes). 1E was not one of them, but they certainly exist. The key is to use one table for everything and to stick to a single, easily-remembered mechanic for using it, both of which 1E failed at in spades - but then, it was written before such things were common in the RPG world.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I much prefer the d20 mechanic to tables. Even in cases where there are tables, I prefer them to be based on a formula that can be derived if the table is not handy. Although, the presence of a table does not preclude there being a formula from which to dervie the neccessary values.

Later
silver

 

[3catcircus]

All of your alleged "advantages" are, as far as I'm concerned, bugs, not features. Characters should have some idea of how good they are at the things they do (or are you saying you have no idea, say, how good you are at math?). DMs have more than enough power, thank you very much. And creating less work for the player is nice until you look at the flipside - more for the DM, who already has plenty.

But beyond that, your so-called advantages of tables over formulas have nothing to do with using tables! You can use tables and have them be public knowledge. You can use formulas and keep them secret. If you want to keep the players in the dark, go ahead (just don't expect me to touch your gaming table with a ten-foot pole). You can do it in a formula-based game just as easily as in a table-based one. You can't do it easily in 3E as written, but that is a matter of how the rulebooks are organized, not which of the two methods they use.

There's also the fact that the older tables, for the most part, are just a way of getting the exact same result as the newer formulas... using more, and more confusing, steps. In this respect, the formulas are strictly better. This aspect is not a question of taste; to prefer the tables in this particular respect, one must actually be using faulty logic.

You bring up an interesting point... Since the numbers in the tables are simply a different representation of the same data that the formulas represent, you *could* take the 3E formulas and convert them to tables.

Think about it:

1e: Roll d20, add or subtract bonuses/penalties, and compare to a level-based chart to determine whether or not the resulting number is adequate to hit the target's AC.

3e: Roll d20, add or subtract bonuses/penalties, and add your BAB to determine whether or not the resulting number is adequate to hit the target's AC.

You *could* convert BABs (which, I might add, *are* in tables) into THAC0, if you wanted to.

It it is then really a matter of who wants to do the book-keeping - leave it to the DM (tables) or do it yourself.

 

[3catcircus]

So you switch around from advocating a slower and more complicated system (charts and THAC0 vs. d20) ?

Which system is slower and more complicated? 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.

 

[3catcircus]

I much prefer the d20 mechanic to tables. Even in cases where there are tables, I prefer them to be based on a formula that can be derived if the table is not handy. Although, the presence of a table does not preclude there being a formula from which to dervie the neccessary values.

Later
silver

The d20 mechanic *is* a table-based mechanic. BAB is in a table for each class. More importantly, there are tables for how ever many hundreds of classes there are. BAB is *the same* as 1e's THAC0 tables, the math is just worked in reverse.