Comments on: Seven of the Worst Ideas in GMing History http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history Game mastering advice, ideas & resources • Dedicated to helping GMs Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-3609 John Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:13:07 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-3609 THAC0 is actually quite easy. Sure, it is a bit backwards, but it is very easy and works just the same as the 3.x version of calculating what you need to hit. The only really "hard" part is keeping track of what your actual THAC0 was, and unless you're going up multiple levels in a single adventure it is easy to keep track of (just look it up and write it down on your character sheet). To determine what you need to hit, simply subtract the AC of your target from your THAC0. For example: if your THAC0 is a 20 and your opponent has an AC of 5 you need a 15 to hit (20-5=15). If your THAC0 is 15 and your target has an AC of -5 you need a 20 to hit (15-(-5)=20). If you don't know the AC of your opponent it is still easy. If your THAC0 is a 10 and you roll an 8 you hit an AC of 2 or better (10-8=2). If your THAC0 is a 15 and you roll a 20 you hit AC -5 (15-20= -5). As you see it is quite easy to calculate what you need to hit a specific AC or to calculate what AC you hit. I do agree that calculating the THAC0 could get annoying (never difficult because looking up a number on a chart is an easy task), but once you've written it down on your character sheet it is very easy. That is, of course, unless you have trouble dealing in negative numbers. THAC0 is actually quite easy. Sure, it is a bit backwards, but it is very easy and works just the same as the 3.x version of calculating what you need to hit. The only really “hard” part is keeping track of what your actual THAC0 was, and unless you’re going up multiple levels in a single adventure it is easy to keep track of (just look it up and write it down on your character sheet).

To determine what you need to hit, simply subtract the AC of your target from your THAC0. For example: if your THAC0 is a 20 and your opponent has an AC of 5 you need a 15 to hit (20-5=15). If your THAC0 is 15 and your target has an AC of -5 you need a 20 to hit (15-(-5)=20).

If you don’t know the AC of your opponent it is still easy. If your THAC0 is a 10 and you roll an 8 you hit an AC of 2 or better (10-8=2). If your THAC0 is a 15 and you roll a 20 you hit AC -5 (15-20= -5).

As you see it is quite easy to calculate what you need to hit a specific AC or to calculate what AC you hit. I do agree that calculating the THAC0 could get annoying (never difficult because looking up a number on a chart is an easy task), but once you’ve written it down on your character sheet it is very easy. That is, of course, unless you have trouble dealing in negative numbers.

]]> By: Cliff Nickerson http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-3142 Cliff Nickerson Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:18:04 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-3142 AoO actually come from chess. "En passant", a pawn attacks a passing pawn. When playing with miniatures, AoO are great. I don't like the things that they arbitrarily apply or don't apply to, but as others have said here, just use common sense. Does your action leave you open for a second? I'm a long time GM. I make up the encounters that the players are going to face. They travel between two settlements in a forest where gnolls are common. Well, they're going to meet some gnolls. Sometimes, a griffon is seen hunting the area. This particular trip, it tries to steal the party's lightly-armored mage. I'll probably come up with a number of inhabitants for the forest, and make up the details. Those notes won't just sit unused in my notebook. As the party crosses the woods, they run into the baddies or signs of the baddies' passage. It's not a plot-based encounter, but it isn't random. Random encounters take time away from the flow of the game. If a GM is good, he plans that flow, including "side-quests" and incidental encounters. AoO actually come from chess. “En passant”, a pawn attacks a passing pawn. When playing with miniatures, AoO are great. I don’t like the things that they arbitrarily apply or don’t apply to, but as others have said here, just use common sense. Does your action leave you open for a second?
I’m a long time GM. I make up the encounters that the players are going to face. They travel between two settlements in a forest where gnolls are common. Well, they’re going to meet some gnolls. Sometimes, a griffon is seen hunting the area. This particular trip, it tries to steal the party’s lightly-armored mage. I’ll probably come up with a number of inhabitants for the forest, and make up the details. Those notes won’t just sit unused in my notebook. As the party crosses the woods, they run into the baddies or signs of the baddies’ passage. It’s not a plot-based encounter, but it isn’t random. Random encounters take time away from the flow of the game. If a GM is good, he plans that flow, including “side-quests” and incidental encounters.

]]> By: Augury » Blog Archive » Seven Worst (?) Ideas in GM History http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-3093 Augury » Blog Archive » Seven Worst (?) Ideas in GM History Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:35:28 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-3093 [...] Recently I saw this post over at TreasureTables.org discussing “Seven of the Worst Ideas in GMing History.” Martin’s choices seemed kind of lukewarm to me — I guess he can take a pass for the phrasing of “Seven of the Worst” instead of “The Seven Worst,” but I don’t even know if I’d put most of these in my category of “GMing History.” The d100, THAC0, and Attacks of Opportunity are all system or object design related. Mixed typefaces, sealed books, and books without indexes are issues dealing with production and marketing of books. [...] [...] Recently I saw this post over at TreasureTables.org discussing “Seven of the Worst Ideas in GMing History.” Martin’s choices seemed kind of lukewarm to me — I guess he can take a pass for the phrasing of “Seven of the Worst” instead of “The Seven Worst,” but I don’t even know if I’d put most of these in my category of “GMing History.” The d100, THAC0, and Attacks of Opportunity are all system or object design related. Mixed typefaces, sealed books, and books without indexes are issues dealing with production and marketing of books. [...]

]]> By: Frank Filz http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-3017 Frank Filz Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:21:20 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-3017 The real divisive thing seems to be the miniatures style play, though AOO seems to be a big part of that. But I think it's false divisiveness. People are wanting D&D to be something it's not. Far better to play the right game in the first place, and not wish for the D&D title to be applied to the game you want to play. D&D has always been a derivative of a miniatures wargame. That people used the D&D books to play something else is not the fault of D&D. It's the fault of players unwilling to consider playing a different game. I mean it's like wanting to introduce dice to chess or something... Frank The real divisive thing seems to be the miniatures style play, though AOO seems to be a big part of that.

But I think it’s false divisiveness. People are wanting D&D to be something it’s not. Far better to play the right game in the first place, and not wish for the D&D title to be applied to the game you want to play. D&D has always been a derivative of a miniatures wargame. That people used the D&D books to play something else is not the fault of D&D. It’s the fault of players unwilling to consider playing a different game. I mean it’s like wanting to introduce dice to chess or something…

Frank

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-3008 Martin Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:02:26 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-3008 One thing that I find interesting is that AoOs are such a divisive rules element -- it seems like most folks either love them or hate them, with not too many people in between. ;) Is the <i>Iron Heroes</i> version of AoOs OGC, and perhaps publicly available somewhere outside of the IH rulebook? One thing that I find interesting is that AoOs are such a divisive rules element — it seems like most folks either love them or hate them, with not too many people in between. ;)

Is the Iron Heroes version of AoOs OGC, and perhaps publicly available somewhere outside of the IH rulebook?

]]> By: Frank Filz http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2985 Frank Filz Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:17:10 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2985 I totally disagree about the miniatures stuff. D&D has always been grounded in miniatures (ok, so I never played any AD&D 2e stuff). My experience with games that went for all that descriptive stuff, and dispensed with the miniatures (and strict turn order type of stuff) was that a player could easily be disenfranchised. Combats would go the way the GM visualised them, with perhaps a bit of popularity contest (i.e. if the GM grooved on your idea, it would probably work well, if the GM wasn't grooving real good on you, well you would just get ground into the muck). Of course there are other ways to enfranchise the player. Dogs in the Vinyard was pretty cool. But it uses hard cold dice to guarantee you have a say, even if the GM isn't really grooving on what you're saying. The GM can't just brush of your 16 raise, though he could call for a better description, but it's also the whole table's responsibility to help you get to that better description. Frank I totally disagree about the miniatures stuff. D&D has always been grounded in miniatures (ok, so I never played any AD&D 2e stuff). My experience with games that went for all that descriptive stuff, and dispensed with the miniatures (and strict turn order type of stuff) was that a player could easily be disenfranchised. Combats would go the way the GM visualised them, with perhaps a bit of popularity contest (i.e. if the GM grooved on your idea, it would probably work well, if the GM wasn’t grooving real good on you, well you would just get ground into the muck).

Of course there are other ways to enfranchise the player. Dogs in the Vinyard was pretty cool. But it uses hard cold dice to guarantee you have a say, even if the GM isn’t really grooving on what you’re saying. The GM can’t just brush of your 16 raise, though he could call for a better description, but it’s also the whole table’s responsibility to help you get to that better description.

Frank

]]> By: greywulf http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2981 greywulf Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:25:20 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2981 Martin, I found myself nodding with you on all these. They'd certainly find a place in my list too, though I do have a certain nostalgic fondness for THAC0 (D&D Rules Cyclopedia, not that upstart inferior "A" D&D product). AoO is the single worst rules mechanic in D&D. It's caused more in-game stumbles, more wasted ink and paper trying to explain it and more burnt brain cells than any other rule to come out of TSR/WOTC, ever. d20 Call of Cthulhu doesn't have it, and is none the worse for it's disappearance (and a good 15 pages lighter too!). Rant coming..... I'm a gamer. I game. I don't restrict my imagination by using miniatures. I don't want to look at a board and move little pieces of plastic around. I don't want five foot steps. I want games where my players swing down from the balcony. I want games where the swing bridge rotates while one character holds on as an ogre charges toward him. I want to be able to describe what's happening and wave my arms in the aim without risking toppling over a bendy paladin (that doesn't even /look/ like the character!) and wrecking the entire combat layout. And I definitely don't want to steenking Attacks of Opportunity. I'm GM. If I want the kobold barbarian to take a swipe at you as you charge past, he does. I don't need rules + FAQ + Errata + Forums to tell me whether it's ok or not. I've revised my opinion. The single worst Idea in gaming was bringing back miniatures. AoO stems from that points. It was 100% profit driven at the expense of restricting imaginitive play, and has nothing to role-playing at all. There. Rant over. I feel better now. Martin, I found myself nodding with you on all these. They’d certainly find a place in my list too, though I do have a certain nostalgic fondness for THAC0 (D&D Rules Cyclopedia, not that upstart inferior “A” D&D product).

AoO is the single worst rules mechanic in D&D. It’s caused more in-game stumbles, more wasted ink and paper trying to explain it and more burnt brain cells than any other rule to come out of TSR/WOTC, ever. d20 Call of Cthulhu doesn’t have it, and is none the worse for it’s disappearance (and a good 15 pages lighter too!).

Rant coming…..

I’m a gamer. I game. I don’t restrict my imagination by using miniatures. I don’t want to look at a board and move little pieces of plastic around. I don’t want five foot steps.

I want games where my players swing down from the balcony. I want games where the swing bridge rotates while one character holds on as an ogre charges toward him. I want to be able to describe what’s happening and wave my arms in the aim without risking toppling over a bendy paladin (that doesn’t even /look/ like the character!) and wrecking the entire combat layout.

And I definitely don’t want to steenking Attacks of Opportunity. I’m GM. If I want the kobold barbarian to take a swipe at you as you charge past, he does. I don’t need rules + FAQ + Errata + Forums to tell me whether it’s ok or not.

I’ve revised my opinion. The single worst Idea in gaming was bringing back miniatures. AoO stems from that points. It was 100% profit driven at the expense of restricting imaginitive play, and has nothing to role-playing at all.

There. Rant over. I feel better now.

]]> By: Frank http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2967 Frank Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:39:54 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2967 Bill: ah, I thought I had remembered the repeating 20s. That was something THAC0 took away, something that was designed to give at least some chance to hit. Of course by D20, that problem has been resolved with the 20 always hits rule (which had been adopted at least informally much earlier - in fact AD&D may have even pointed it out as an option). tsuyoshikentsu: I don't know the details of those feats, but some feats follow a general theme of allowing rules to be broken or overridden. Rules breaking rules are always problematical when you start having sufficient numbers of them around to mix. I seem to remember that was a problem with Cosmic Encounters way back when when folks started using multiple expansions. Frank Bill: ah, I thought I had remembered the repeating 20s. That was something THAC0 took away, something that was designed to give at least some chance to hit. Of course by D20, that problem has been resolved with the 20 always hits rule (which had been adopted at least informally much earlier – in fact AD&D may have even pointed it out as an option).

tsuyoshikentsu: I don’t know the details of those feats, but some feats follow a general theme of allowing rules to be broken or overridden. Rules breaking rules are always problematical when you start having sufficient numbers of them around to mix. I seem to remember that was a problem with Cosmic Encounters way back when when folks started using multiple expansions.

Frank

]]> By: tsuyoshikentsu http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2961 tsuyoshikentsu Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:21:53 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2961 You all think AoOs are bad NOW, try this: Fighter A has Robilar's Gambit (PHB II). Fighter B has Robilar's Gambit and Double hit. (Mini HB, I think.) Fighter B attacks Fighter A with a Double Hit. What happens? T You all think AoOs are bad NOW, try this:

Fighter A has Robilar’s Gambit (PHB II). Fighter B has Robilar’s Gambit and Double hit. (Mini HB, I think.)

Fighter B attacks Fighter A with a Double Hit. What happens?

T

]]> By: Bill D http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2959 Bill D Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:49:59 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2959 THAC0 beat the hell out of the original 1st edition tables. THat was far worse, especially because 20 repeated on the table several times, not all of which could be hit by modifying up to 20 with appropriate modifiers from a lower number. Try to explain that and realize how much better THAC0 was. THAC0 beat the hell out of the original 1st edition tables. THat was far worse, especially because 20 repeated on the table several times, not all of which could be hit by modifying up to 20 with appropriate modifiers from a lower number. Try to explain that and realize how much better THAC0 was.

]]> By: Jeff Rients http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2940 Jeff Rients Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:26:55 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2940 So I double checked with the player of Ranseur Self-Impalement Lad (first appearance <i>Legion</i> #256). He still chuckles at the memory of that fight, so it's all good. But just so I'm completely clear: I'm not proposing everyone adopt fumble rules for every game. Far from it. I just think the near-universal abhorrence for fumble rules is due to a combination of bad fumble mechanics (too frequent and/or too vicious fumbles) and lameass DMs. A reasonable fumble mechanic with the right DM is just another crunchy tool that may enhance some campaigns even though it is completely inproper for many others. So I double checked with the player of Ranseur Self-Impalement Lad (first appearance Legion #256). He still chuckles at the memory of that fight, so it’s all good.

But just so I’m completely clear: I’m not proposing everyone adopt fumble rules for every game. Far from it. I just think the near-universal abhorrence for fumble rules is due to a combination of bad fumble mechanics (too frequent and/or too vicious fumbles) and lameass DMs. A reasonable fumble mechanic with the right DM is just another crunchy tool that may enhance some campaigns even though it is completely inproper for many others.

]]> By: Blue http://www.treasuretables.org/2006/07/seven-of-the-worst-ideas-in-gming-history/comment-page-1#comment-2935 Blue Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:52:25 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=410#comment-2935 The groups I'm in, AoOs aren't an issue rules-wise. Mind you, a bunch of people (including one DM) are so AoO afraid that they'd rather lose a round here or there then trigger a single extra attack, but that's just falty perception that it's always bad instead of weighing risk/reward. The *concept* of random encounters I find important - there are things out there, you can't just wander around with no repercussions. It makes travelling feel risky and adds to the whole need risky to feel reward for the players. That said, I haven't *rolled* for "random" encounters for years. If for pacing, story, or need to introduce/remind an area is risky, then one happens. Fumbles - over time, fumbles reward monsters. If Monser #24601 fumbles and ends up dying, it's a little thrill. If PC #2 played for three years does the same because of a bad set of rolls, it's unfun and takes a player out of a session for a bit at the least. When playing, I'd rather die because I didn't figure something out, or was stupid, or acting the martyr - dieing to a signle bad roll is anticlimatic. Don't like save or die spells for the same reason. Cheers, =Blue The groups I’m in, AoOs aren’t an issue rules-wise. Mind you, a bunch of people (including one DM) are so AoO afraid that they’d rather lose a round here or there then trigger a single extra attack, but that’s just falty perception that it’s always bad instead of weighing risk/reward.

The *concept* of random encounters I find important – there are things out there, you can’t just wander around with no repercussions. It makes travelling feel risky and adds to the whole need risky to feel reward for the players. That said, I haven’t *rolled* for “random” encounters for years. If for pacing, story, or need to introduce/remind an area is risky, then one happens.

Fumbles – over time, fumbles reward monsters. If Monser #24601 fumbles and ends up dying, it’s a little thrill. If PC #2 played for three years does the same because of a bad set of rolls, it’s unfun and takes a player out of a session for a bit at the least. When playing, I’d rather die because I didn’t figure something out, or was stupid, or acting the martyr – dieing to a signle bad roll is anticlimatic. Don’t like save or die spells for the same reason.

Cheers,
=Blue

]]>