Do you prefer D20 or To Hit and Save Tables

[Umbran]

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).

The players in 1e have to keep up with all the plusses anyway, unless you're playing "blind",with the DM holding the actual character sheets.

And even if that's the case, it doesn't really keep the players in the dark. They see the die, and can quickly learn what's needed byprocess of elimination. When Joe rolls a 16 and hits, and Hank rolls a 15 and misses, the players figure things out right quick. They're good at math, you know.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D20.

THAC0 before that.

Tables only until an easier way came along.


RC

 

[Numion]

D20. Players don't need to know the AC or check tables. Roll the dice and just learn from the DM if you hit or not. Much easier.

Trust a DM to calculate your modifiers? NEVER!

 

[Crothian]

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).

I perfer the d20 way. The DM has enough work and the PCs still don't know the DC they need so they are still in the same amount of darkness. In both cases the players know what they rolled, but not what they need to roll. Also, I've never found that the DM needed to have power given to him.

 

[Aaron L]

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.


Besides, in our games the DM just flat out says what the AC you have to hit is. It isn't like keeping it secret is going to accomplish anything.

 

[Stormborn]

I played MERPS one time. ONE TIME. There are very few things I have ever said I would never play again and thats one of them. And it all boils down to one simple reason: Tables. I hate tables. They slow down play. If two people are in combat with one another and one hits the other with an axe there should be no "mystery" to it. He can see instantly what happened.

OTOH, if there were some way to make crits more intersting w/o making them more complicated I would like that. Like "If, on a confirmed crit, the target is not killed in addition to hp damage it suffers -1 to an ability score (roll 1d6) for every 3 points by which the confirmation roll beat the target's AC." plus some flavorful description suggestions to suggest poking out an eye, cutting off a limb, etc.

But please, no tables more complicated than that.

 

[Desdichado]

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).

Gah! Seriously?! The sense of mystery is just the false suspense generated while the DM flips through his tables trying to find the correct result.

And yeah--maybe it reduces work for the players, but it then dumps all that same work squarely in the lap of the GM. It doesn't result in a net of less work, just focuses it more on one individual. Coincidentally the one who does the most work anyway.

No thanks.

 

[tx7321]

I've got your next thread tx7012: It was good that Gandalf couldn't swing Glamdring in 1E! Or perhaps a defense for Gygax's 'prohibition' of modifying the rules, maybe?

Numion, please chill out, this is not a debate, let people freely share their opinions (as they are) no reason to get so touchy. Anyhow, I'm sure Pirate Cat would appreciate civilty in this thread.


Well, as far as THACO goes, I didn't see it used until the later part of the 80s (so, yeah what Hong said, after Dragonlance, though I wasn't aware of any particular connection). But I'd believe THACO was used early on, its very intuitive. I just think it was pretty rare (at least around here).


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).

 

[hong]

So, one has to wonder, why didn't Gygax just use a D20 system to begin with (or something like it).

Because he was drunk at the time.

NEXT!

 

[Ry]

I'm torn between d20 and Omni - Omni is a table, but everything (attacks, defense, etc.) uses the SAME table, so it's even more clear to players. Basically Omni boils down to "is your total greater than 20? Crit! Is your roll less than 0, Crit fail!" That puts even less fog in front of the players, since you tell them the penalty they take for how good their opponent is.