Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's Talk About THAC0
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7616654" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>I have not read the rest of the thread; however, I have opinions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it's <em>not</em> just as complex as the current method. It's only the same complexity <em>when you already know the target's AC</em>. Since AC varies between targets and is typically a secret number until the players manage to work it out, THAC0 is not less complex. Players can't do die roll + AC >= THAC0. Players have to do Die roll - THAC0 = AC hit. Except that's wrong. They <em>actually</em> have to do THAC0 - Die roll = AC hit. Did you notice the error while reading, or did you have to stop to think about it? Is it obvious which is correct? If your THAC0 is 15 and your modified roll is 13, is it easy to intuit while rolling the dice that you hit AC 2 and not AC -2? Not really. It's hard to look at the dice and say, "Okay, that's not possible you must've done the maths wrong because that result is way off." You can't do that because 90% of the time your results are between -5 and 5. All your numbers look the same. And now you add in a modifer, and it gets really complicated. See, it's really easy to confuse THAC0 - Die roll - 1 = AC hit and THAC0 - (Die roll - 1) = AC hit. The room for math errors in how people <em>actually</em> use THAC0 is significant.</p><p></p><p>The real problem with THAC0 is that the "easy" mode formula of die roll + AC >= THAC0 conflicts with player nature. When players roll an attack die, every player -- and I do mean <em>every</em> player -- wants to know <strong>"What AC did I hit?</strong>" That's the question they always pose. It's one of the most common questions asked at the AD&D table. Players can't measure in their performance *against the other PCs and NPCs* without doing that step. In order to understand how well their character is doing -- how powerful they are -- knowing the target number they reached is <em>vital</em>. THAC0, in it's "easy" mode, seeks to obscure that information from the player <em>by design</em>. Gygax assumed the player would never know their THAC0. That's why the charts were in the DMG. Gygax assumed only the DM would determine the outcome of an attack because the DM would be in total control of everything. In reality, that's too much burden on the DM to look up tables all the time. So everybody made the players do it. Except <em>the players want to know how well they're doing.</em> Unless they roll high or low, they won't know. And then they'll only know they rolled high or low.</p><p></p><p>The lesson of THAC0 and descending armor class is clear: You cannot design an action resolution system around how <em>you want people to play</em>. You need to design them around what makes game play operate swiftly, intuitively for the players and the DM, it must be easy to evaluate by the players and DM so they can understand the consequences of modifiers, and it must help all players and DMs at the table understand what's going on and maintain the suspension of disbelief. It must be fast to resolve, it must not be prone to simple math errors, and it must not occupy more game time than it absolutely must. THAC0 and descending armor class essentially do none of that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7616654, member: 6777737"] I have not read the rest of the thread; however, I have opinions. No, it's [I]not[/I] just as complex as the current method. It's only the same complexity [i]when you already know the target's AC[/i]. Since AC varies between targets and is typically a secret number until the players manage to work it out, THAC0 is not less complex. Players can't do die roll + AC >= THAC0. Players have to do Die roll - THAC0 = AC hit. Except that's wrong. They [I]actually[/I] have to do THAC0 - Die roll = AC hit. Did you notice the error while reading, or did you have to stop to think about it? Is it obvious which is correct? If your THAC0 is 15 and your modified roll is 13, is it easy to intuit while rolling the dice that you hit AC 2 and not AC -2? Not really. It's hard to look at the dice and say, "Okay, that's not possible you must've done the maths wrong because that result is way off." You can't do that because 90% of the time your results are between -5 and 5. All your numbers look the same. And now you add in a modifer, and it gets really complicated. See, it's really easy to confuse THAC0 - Die roll - 1 = AC hit and THAC0 - (Die roll - 1) = AC hit. The room for math errors in how people [I]actually[/I] use THAC0 is significant. The real problem with THAC0 is that the "easy" mode formula of die roll + AC >= THAC0 conflicts with player nature. When players roll an attack die, every player -- and I do mean [I]every[/I] player -- wants to know [B]"What AC did I hit?[/B]" That's the question they always pose. It's one of the most common questions asked at the AD&D table. Players can't measure in their performance *against the other PCs and NPCs* without doing that step. In order to understand how well their character is doing -- how powerful they are -- knowing the target number they reached is [I]vital[/I]. THAC0, in it's "easy" mode, seeks to obscure that information from the player [I]by design[/I]. Gygax assumed the player would never know their THAC0. That's why the charts were in the DMG. Gygax assumed only the DM would determine the outcome of an attack because the DM would be in total control of everything. In reality, that's too much burden on the DM to look up tables all the time. So everybody made the players do it. Except [I]the players want to know how well they're doing.[/I] Unless they roll high or low, they won't know. And then they'll only know they rolled high or low. The lesson of THAC0 and descending armor class is clear: You cannot design an action resolution system around how [I]you want people to play[/I]. You need to design them around what makes game play operate swiftly, intuitively for the players and the DM, it must be easy to evaluate by the players and DM so they can understand the consequences of modifiers, and it must help all players and DMs at the table understand what's going on and maintain the suspension of disbelief. It must be fast to resolve, it must not be prone to simple math errors, and it must not occupy more game time than it absolutely must. THAC0 and descending armor class essentially do none of that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Let's Talk About THAC0
Top