Was Thac0 really that bad?

foolish_mortals said:

that's not hard to do.

1 - -9 = 10

foolish_mortals

Click to expand...

It's also not fun to do. It makes combat feel like accounting. Lots of people didn't really mind it, but nobody liked it or preferred it (yes, that's a rhetorical nobody and you don't win anything by showing up and saying you were the exception except for a "Socially Awkward Nerd of the Day" trophy.) It was also just awkward enough of a math problem that when you're doing it quickly you were more prone to errors. Also, because most people don't do math like that very often, it always slowed everything down and made you stop thinking about the game and start thinking about math.

I have a hard time imagining that even the majority of OSR grognards playing old editions or retroclones use it.

Question: Was THAC0 really that bad?

Answer: Yes.

Glad we could get that out of the way. Next question?

No. THAC0 is an astoundingly simple process that people did wrong and then accused it of being complicated. Under THAC0, the AC is not the target number. THAC0 is the target number. Armor Class is a modifier. If the foes AC is 5, then you add 5 to your roll trying to hit your THAC0. If their AC was -5 then you'd subtract 5 from the roll trying to hit your THAC0. That's it. What was nice is that your THAC0 rarely changed, especially if you weren't a fighter.

There's zero need for complicated math and zero need for a table. Ascending or descending has nothing to do with it. If you try and make AC the target number it messes it up as THAC0 as a modifier was afr more klunky. But that was a user error problem, not a THAC0 problem.

jolt said:

No. THAC0 is an astoundingly simple process that people did wrong and then accused it of being complicated. Under THAC0, the AC is not the target number. THAC0 is the target number. Armor Class is a modifier. If the foes AC is 5, then you add 5 to your roll trying to hit your THAC0. If their AC was -5 then you'd subtract 5 from the roll trying to hit your THAC0. That's it. What was nice is that your THAC0 rarely changed, especially if you weren't a fighter.

There's zero need for complicated math and zero need for a table. Ascending or descending has nothing to do with it. If you try and make AC the target number it messes it up as THAC0 as a modifier was afr more klunky. But that was a user error problem, not a THAC0 problem.

Click to expand...

An astoundingly simple process of doing the exact opposite of what the DMG actually prescribes.

I never understood the hatred of THAC0. Granted, it's been years since I played 2E but my memory of it was that it wasn't hard to use. Has it been replaced by an "easier" system in newer editions? Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the level of difficulty behind THAC0 was pretty low so, to me, the difference in difficulty is so marginal as to be almost non-existent.

I never had an issue with THAC0 until D&D 3E came out, and once I saw how it handled the new ascending AC process I could not unsee it. Going back to descending AC and THAC0 has been purely for grim nostalgia ever since. Like eating a bowl of old grits with stale bread to reminisce about the time I was a kid and we had no money. Ah, those were the days. ;-)

Desdichado said:

It's also not fun to do. It makes combat feel like accounting. Lots of people didn't really mind it, but nobody liked it or preferred it (yes, that's a rhetorical nobody and you don't win anything by showing up and saying you were the exception except for a "Socially Awkward Nerd of the Day" trophy.) It was also just awkward enough of a math problem that when you're doing it quickly you were more prone to errors. Also, because most people don't do math like that very often, it always slowed everything down and made you stop thinking about the game and start thinking about math.

Click to expand...

I'm more adamant than most in the 'hey guys, can we please stop trying to posture our nerd cred*?,' but even I don't think this is just** people trying to show up to win the discussion. It's just the kind of thing that people regularly mention being a nightmare, and people who didn't have all that much difficulty might feel compelled to point their lack of difficultly out.
*as part of my 'nerds are the worst to other nerds' go-to topic
**clearly that does happen, since it's the internet, but certainly not just that.

That's likely the majority of players who played in that era (more on that in a second). That's because, while ThAC0 is bad, it is trivially so. You have to remember where the bonuses/penalties go, and not to double-count them, but that's true of all the models -- the ThAC0 model likely requires a small increase in the mental processing power*, but again, a trivial amount. It's not hard, just unnecessary.
*at least I remember having to think in my head "okay, this situational modifier is a benefit to my character, and thus..." more than I do with bonuses and penalties in the BAB+mods or PB+mods models

The worst part of ThAC0, IMO, is that it is built upon the low-AC=>better model, which I think is the actual main culprit in this issue. The real cognitive load is having to attach subtextual +/-s to the existing +/- modifiers. The cleanest example of that being +2 armor actually lowering AC. However, the one that I always had to step back and think* on was the weapon-vs-armor modifiers and was that +1 armor class adjustment to the attack roll or the AC -- and was it a +1 to the AC, or a +1 bonus to the AC (lowering it 1)?
*especially back as a kid before I had any real sense why a two-handed sword would be good against plate armor (relatively speaking), but a broad sword would be bad against it.

Where I think ThAC0 (and rule structures like it) had a negative impact was in what I'll call "inhibiting the lookie loos" -- the mildly interested onlooker* who might have joined (or stuck with) gaming, but had an eye-glaze or can't-be-bothered moment with ThAC0 (probably not in isolation, but in aggregate with other micro-frustrations) and just lost momentum. So while people who got over the investment threshold likely didn't struggle greatly to keep using the system, it likely is a small part of why many who otherwise might have glommed onto TTRPGs never quite got there.
*such as the gamer spouse; the comic book nerd friend who was game to branch out into TTRPGs as well; or that game store customer who came in for some modelling glue and saw what you were doing and said 'that looks neat.'

Overall, it is just like the fraction math for Champions/Hero System powers* or that one Traveller formula for in-system travel time** -- no, few if anyone (over a certain age & math education) who bothers playing the game is going to not be able to do it. It's more a question as to whether they should have to bother doing so, and if it adds anything to the game for them to have to do so. For game side-project activities that can be performed only by those who get personal satisfaction from stretching their advanced primary school math muscles, they are perfect. As core system game rules you need to perform to play the game, they are trivial-but-present disincentives towards more people sticking with the games.
* where a level 3 blast power with specific benefits and limitations might cost 3 x 5 x (1.0+.75+.5+.25+.25+.25)/(1.0+1.75+.5) Character Points, and 3 x 5 x (1.0+.75+.5+.25+.25+.25)/10 END per use.
**t=2×sqrt(d/a), IIRC.

So until recently I played with five grognards in a Rappan Athuk OSR campaign. We used 5e with a bunch of house rules to amp up the game’s deadliness— lingering injuries, no long rests except in town, increased XP requirements to level, und so weiter. It would have been a terrific campaign if the DM showed up more than half the time. Well, there was also the bard.

We had one guy in the group whom I’ll call Greg. Greg played a deliberately stupid lore bard, an ignorant skill monkey, an idiot savant with an exaggerated and cartoonishly stupid voice. His raison d’être was to “inadvertently” say inappropriate things to NPCs that would sow chaos between them and the party. Everything he said and did was foolish (combat included)—unless there was a skill check that allowed him to show off his 16 intelligence and its five associated proficiencies.

One night when the DM blew us off, the six of us started chatting it and the topic turned to first edition rules—and 1e bards in particular—when, apropos of nothing, Greg lets out a low sigh of sorrow and longing as if to preface the tale of a lover lost, a parent passed, a pet put down, a child gone away to college. "Man," said Greg. "I miss THAC0."

That was when I decided to quit the campaign.

Omak Darkleaf said:

So until recently I played with five grognards in a Rappan Athuk OSR campaign. We used 5e with a bunch of house rules to amp up the game’s deadliness— lingering injuries, no long rests except in town, increased XP requirements to level, und so weiter. It would have been a terrific campaign if the DM showed up more than half the time.

Click to expand...

If your DM showed up that infrequently and the rest of you didn't just start a new game without him you are far more tolerant than I would have been.

jolt said:

No. THAC0 is an astoundingly simple process that people did wrong and then accused it of being complicated. Under THAC0, the AC is not the target number. THAC0 is the target number. Armor Class is a modifier. If the foes AC is 5, then you add 5 to your roll trying to hit your THAC0. If their AC was -5 then you'd subtract 5 from the roll trying to hit your THAC0. That's it. What was nice is that your THAC0 rarely changed, especially if you weren't a fighter.

There's zero need for complicated math and zero need for a table. Ascending or descending has nothing to do with it. If you try and make AC the target number it messes it up as THAC0 as a modifier was afr more klunky. But that was a user error problem, not a THAC0 problem.

Click to expand...

Suggesting that a design is right and that the majority of its user are just using it wrong is generally a sign that the design is not that great.