Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[the Jester]

d20 + modifiers is just so elegant, I can't help but prefer it.

On the other hand, the 1e attack matrices have a special place in my heart.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

d20 as well. For one simple reason:

Higher is better.

This was the one of the best changes to D&D in a long time. I remember the frustration veteran players had trying to categorize a saving throw. Or the excitement of rolling high only to realize you wanted to roll low on that particular action.

The chart's weren't something arcane--they were a nuisance. Heck, TORG went a step further and uses a chart, too: roll a d20 (rerolling on 10s & 20s), then refer to a master chart to see what bonus you add to a set value (like a stat or skill). Why not, on, I don't know, just roll the die & directly add a number to the roll for a result?

Whatever nostaglia I had for older editions of D&D, you can be sure it wasn't for the mish-mash system in use at the time.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

That said, despite being a big 3.X fan, I will admit a special soft spot for one kind of table from the older editions--those funky d100 tables where you'd roll and something random and amusing would happen (Wild Surges, Potion Miscibility, Lasko's Magic Fountain, etc). I just love those things, and I can't really explain why.

Oh, yeah, those tables rocked. Gygax even included a lot of tables that weren't even numbered in the 1e DMG, that I used all the time to add atmosphere. Sounds, sights, "dungeon dressing," all that stuff. "Gary Gygax's World Builder" is a book composed entirely of such stuff, so if you have a hankerin' for it, that's the book to get.

 

[hong]

I prefer games taht use tables (like 1E). I think it both leaves the players in the dark and thus captures a since of mystery.

You misspelled "sense of wonder". Hope this helps!

 

[Melan]

To hit formulas, definitely. I never had a problem with THAC0 and the d20 core mechanic is pretty much how it should be done. I do use tables when I run OD&D one-offs, but that's because both of them (attack & saves; I eliminated the separate monster table) fit on very small laminated index cards. I have no desire to use DM screens in a game; they detract from the casual atmosphere and hinder my - or my players' - enjoyment.

 

[billd91]

I prefer d20. Having to look things up in a table blows. It's one of the things I look back at in older games like 1e and Villains and Vigilantes and cringe.

 

[Numion]

I prefer games taht use tables (like 1E). I think it both leaves the players in the dark and thus captures a since of mystery. It also seems to put the power with the GM (who determines who hits or misses by consulting the chart) and reduces the work for the players (who in D20 have the task of keeping up with all the pluses).

You can keep the players "in the dark" without the chart by not telling them the friggin AC!

 

[donremus]

I played 1E for years and have a fondness for the old tables but I realise rose tinted glasses may be involved....

D20 is much better

 

[Nightchilde-2]

My hat of tables and charts know no limit.

 

[3d6]

I prefer games that use tables (like 1E). I think it both leaves the players in the dark and thus captures a sense of mystery. It also seems to put the power with the GM (who determines who hits or misses by consulting the chart) and reduces the work for the players (who in D20 have the task of keeping up with all the pluses).

Did AD&D1E not use THAC0? If it did, I don't think there's a substantial difference. There isn't a meaningful difference between THAC0 - 1d20 compared to AC and 1d20 + attack bonus compared to AC, except that 1d20 + attack bonus is more intuitive.

UPDATE: After looking through OSRIC, it appears that AD&D1E does use THAC0, so I don't think there's much of a difference between the AD&D system and the D&D3.x system, other than the 3.x system is more intuitive and takes up less space in the book.