"I hate math"

[Silverleaf]

This is why I refuse to DM 3.x any longer. If I have to use a spreadsheet to keep track of stuff while running, that sort of turns what should be "fun" into "work" AFAIC.

When running Warhammer or Basic D&D I need 1 rulebook, my DM's screen, some dice, a pencil and either a published adventure or a few pages of hand-written notes. That's it.

So yeah, put me in the "I hate math (while gaming)" camp.

That's pretty much it for me. I don't mind math per se, it's a tool and an indispensable one for certain tasks. But when I play D&D, I want to delve and remain into a fantasy world for several hours, not play accounting 101 or remedial arithmetic. All those modifiers, stacking bonuses, special cases, move/countermove and precalculated task resolution stuff just gets in my way, and waste a lot of time.

 

[Silverleaf]

We have an engineer in our game too. The guy is a genius, and we both have minors in math. D&D is basic algebra and it keeps the mind sharp, plus most any situation in the game can be solved with simple dice rolls. Math is power (hey, you should see how much fun I have adding up all that sneak attack damage!).

I design & code software, of all sorts, for various OS's. That's what I do all day long at work (and in much of my free time too), and others look up to me when they need help to solve problems. It's sometimes fun, sometimes frustrating, sometimes rewarding and fulfilling. Invariably though I spend a great deal of my time banging my head against brick walls until I break through them. I'm not particularly bright, or dumb. But I'm tenacious, and computers have always "clicked" with me ever since I touched an 8-bit CP/M micro at age 9. Those are the systems I enjoy figuring out and making them dance to my tune. That is my purpose, if there ever was one.
But I play D&D to get away from that, to take a break. Much in the same way as I read comic books or watch movies. I don't read the latest Heavy Metal and try to stat out the protagonists in Bilal's latest graphic novel. That stuff gets in the way of the story, the fantasy. And using a D&D session as an workout for the math part of the brain is much the same. D&D is better left as an excercise of imagination and creativity, using the rules only at the most basic level. Unfortunately 3e has made this rather difficult, so I play a house-ruled version of Basic/Expert...

 

[mmadsen]

Some people like to couch this as a battle between those who like (and are good at) math, and those who dislike (and are bad at) math. Many of us here though, like (and are good at) math, but don't want to dwell on arithmetic minutia either during a game or in order to prepare for the game.

A complicated mathematic model is not necessarily a more accurate (or "realistic") model -- especially when you have human arbiters around to make nuanced assessments without resorting to inflexible lists of modifiers.

 

[Crothian]

A complicated mathematic model is not necessarily a more accurate (or "realistic") model -- especially when you have human arbiters around to make nuanced assessments without resorting to inflexible lists of modifiers.

And that's why Space Opera failed and D&D survived. As far as the math goes, d20 is pretty darn simple.

 

[Silverleaf]

I've found that high-level games are slower because of the wider range of options available to the players, not because of the math. What should I cast this round? What special attack should I use? The math is just adding one and two; the time it takes is irrelevant. Personally, I hardly call it math.

The real time is spent in making choices. Some people would point to other systems, such as OD&D, and say that they work faster. I answer: duh, of course. If a fighter can only whack, whack and whack again, it's fairly obvious that the game is faster. The players simply don't have to think. If that's desirable for you, good. Me, I think that a few extra seconds are a fair price for the beautiful complexity of 3E combat.

That only happens if you take the written rules as unflexible law, and frankly it's not the way OD&D was meant to be played (the DM section in 1981 Basic D&D makes this point quite clear). Fighters attack yes, but they also sneak around (which is different than move silently/hide in shadows), grapple, disarm, tumble under an ogre or giant's legs, snipe with bow/x-bow, swing from chandeliers, and pull down tapestries on top of the BBEG...
The players do have to think, but they don't do so in terms of preset maneuvers or by picking from a menu. They imagine what their character is going to do, and then we resolve it with a simple, basic mechanic. That is the beautiful simplicity of OD&D combat.

 

[Silverleaf]

I find it humorous that a lot of folks don't blink at 3es convoluted math, but bitch about Thac0 being too hard to figure.

Some people do have a problem with THAC0. But it's okay because there are other options.
Personally I don't like THAC0 or using the attack matrix. But one day I realised that the attack tables in Basic D&D follow a linear pattern, and you can use a simple equation to figure of if your attack was successful: d20 + ToHitMod + opponent AC. If the result is 20 or above, then you hit. The ToHit modifier is based on class & level (just like BAB in 3e) and I wrote those down next to each class XP chart, so they can be recorded at character creation time & advancement. The neat thing here is that monsters don't need a ToHit modifier, because it happens to be equal to their hit dice. One less stat to keep track of, hehe.
Others who don't like THAC0 have retrofitted the d20 "positive AC" system into their game, and that works fine too, though they have to go change the AC for every monster in the book. That's why I didn't go that route.

 

[Andre]

To wit: do away with iterative attacks.

Agreed. I've been toying with the idea of eliminating iterative attacks and simply adding the attacker's BAB to damage. A high level fighter, therefore, does a lot more damage with a longsword than a mid level wizard does. Which makes a lot of sense to me.

I can see a number of potential concerns:
*one blow can quickly take a character to -10 or lower
*AoO's become more powerful
*it doesn't account for creatures with multiple natural attacks
*likewise, it would change the CR of some creatures noticeably, e.g., a Titan loses a lot of melee damage potential
*it makes certain feats/abilities more powerful, e.g., Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows

I don't think the problems are insurmountable, but it would require playtesting to be sure. What is certain is that it would simplify melee/ranged combat considerably.

 

[mmadsen]

And that's why Space Opera failed and D&D survived.

I have no idea what that means.

As far as the math goes, d20 is pretty darn simple.

And all the math in tax accounting is pretty darn simple too.

 

[WizarDru]

I have no idea what that means.

I'm guessing he's referring to Traveller losing to D&D in a commercial sense. I think that's grossly oversimplfying things, but I can see some point in it. iirc, Traveller had some funky mathematics that may have been scientifically accurate but absolutely no fun to use for anyone but a science or math enthusiast.

And all the math in tax accounting is pretty darn simple too.

Yeah, but unlike your taxes, D&D and d20 have clear and concise rules that are easy to understand and follow. Even the most complicated grappling example is much less difficult to decode than figuring out how to depreciate a piece of equipment on your SOHO when you're self-employed and you have to find specific sub-forms...unless you're married, of course, then a different set of rules apply...especially if that spouse is employed and pays taxes in a much different structure than you do. Try even finding the proper forms on the IRS website; it's no accident that there's a multimillion dollar industry dedicated to helping you complete your 1040s....whereas the d20 market merely has oodles of books to ADD to the complexity of the game in the form of options. Other than D&D for Dummies, there really aren't many such materials for the d20 system....that alone shows the difference between the two.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

it's no accident that there's a multimillion dollar industry dedicated to helping you complete your 1040s....

Well, the cost of tax compliance is multi-billion dollars. In 1999 estimates were that $250 billion was spent on tax compliance for federal income taxes alone.