i miss Thac0

[Fandraxx]

...so much so that I (somehow) made a video about it.

 

[m7600]

So, allow me to say something before watching the video (yes, I can be intellectually reckless like that)

The only thing that I like about To Hit Armor Class 0 is that the acronym, THAC0, sounds like "taco", which in turn makes me think of Taco Bell, and I find that hilarious.

Mechanically, it gets a "meh" from me.

What I really dislike about it is that it makes the concept of Armor Class unintuitive. It's not intuitive to say that the lower th AC, the better, and that the higher the AC, the worse. It should be the other way around, which is what I like about more recent editions.

I'll watch the video now and I'll tell you what I think about it later.

 

[m7600]

Ok, I watched the video.

I liked it. I don't share some of your beliefs, though. Let me be blunt: THAC0 has a lot of nostalgia factor going for it, but that's basically it. It's not some super cool formula that makes battles more interesting. But we can go back and forth on that.

What I will say, which you tangentially mentioned in the video, is negative armor class. To me that's nonsense. Like in the Infinity Engine games, when you think "oh cool, I found an armor that gives me minus three to my armor class." Minus three? What does that even represent? Like, what physical attribute does that correlate with? There's no negative numbers in reality. Negative AC is a nonsensical concept, and yes this is the hill that I choose to die on.

Unrelated, but there was THAC0 in the Gold Box games as well. And I know that you're aware of that, but I just felt like mentioning it nonetheless.

 

[Black Elk]

I kinda love it. THAC0 has such an idiomatic feel to it, with a set point in time and such clear cultural tail to it. If it was scrawled on the wall as graffiti or assumed as a mid 90s DJ name, easily.

The actual mechanics are sorta confusing, but also they did seem to justify whatever mathematics I probably had to learn in like 3rd or 4th grade regarding negative numbers. It felt like pythagorean code, combined with some sort of ancient Mayan footnote for the final vowel lol. A real blend there

My fav is just flashing the 2e PHB with the dude charging in like "quick, tell me what armor he's weaing!!! Oh no!"

I agree that the mean reason to hold onto it is probably BG infinity legacy. It's so esoteric though, and really transcends the technical definition. Now it's more like a slang shorthand, and so recursive now no one can recall how it made it's way so far, but it continues to endure.

Also something kinda charming about a rule name that just bangs open with the infinitive "to hit..."

Like obviously it must have heheh

Good vid!

 

[O_Bruce]

And just like that I ended up watching several of your videos...

 

[Fandraxx]

Unrelated, but there was THAC0 in the Gold Box games as well. And I know that you're aware of that, but I just felt like mentioning it nonetheless.

Yes (and I had considered making mention of that), but, when speaking to a general audience, I don't think most are as big of nerds as us to go all the way back and start romping through POR.

And just like that I ended up watching several of your videos...

Much appreciated!

I kinda love it. THAC0 has such an idiomatic feel to it, with a set point in time and such clear cultural tail to it. If it was scrawled on the wall as graffiti or assumed as a mid 90s DJ name, easily.

Did I just find my new DJ name?

 

[m7600]

Yes (and I had considered making mention of that), but, when speaking to a general audience, I don't think most are as big of nerds as us to go all the way back and start romping through POR.

It's a funny thing. Pool of Radiance was published in 1988, but 2nd Edition was published in 1989. How did THAC0 make its way into the videogame before tabletop?

Pretty crazy if you think about it. Though take it with a grain of salt, though. I just played 4 hours of tabletop Pathfinder and I'm high as fuck.

 

[JustKneller]

What I really dislike about it is that it makes the concept of Armor Class unintuitive. It's not intuitive to say that the lower th AC, the better, and that the higher the AC, the worse. It should be the other way around, which is what I like about more recent editions.

@m7600 I'm going to start by saying that I totally agree with you, despite the fact that what follows would sound like I disagree with you.

The origins of THAC0 is rather interesting. When they were putting together the combat mechanics for D&D, they needed to have a way to factor in different types of armor. This was before "roleplaying games" were even an established thing so they had not a whole lot to turn to, except wargames. The wargames that had the most viable systems from which to steal were naval combat games. There you would have "first class" armor or "third class" armor where having a lower number class was better (kinda like being in first place as opposed to third place). It made a lot of sense for the players of the time, most of whom were coming from wargames and would have some familiarity with the concept. It stuck and, until WotC changed it, nobody really had a problem with it.

That being said...

"and by add, I mean subtract"

@Fandraxx It's a good video and I get a little nostalgic at times, but I'm kinda glad THAC0 (which I agree is pronounced THAH-co) died. I might actually argue that B/X is the most balanced D&D of all time, but both are definitely more balanced than WotC's products and I would take 2nd ed over 3+ ed. any day of the week. I don't think THAC0 has anything to do with it, though. THAC0 and ABs are just math, and they are (or at least can be) effectively the same computations. However, THAC0 math was not intuitive unless you grew up with it.

I think where WotC lost their balance is not with THAC0, but with the buffet multi-classing and the front-loading character creation. You basically make a D&D character like you would make a deck for Magic. Since most of the mechanics (and often the games themselves, in my experience) revolve around combat, players seem to optimize builds to be exploit advantages with the system. And, I don't mean that judgementally. I did the same thing when I played 3rd edition by creating a Dex fighter who used a fighting chain (the only weapon that had reach and could attack adjacently) and really ran the game on attacks of opportunity. It was slow to win, but I was near untouchable with my trips and disarms. At the time, I don't think they anticipated anyone would build for this. It actually pissed off my DM so much he killed me in the next session with a horde of wererats that were way above our CR.

But, I digress...

I don't think WotC is even trying to be balanced. They're leaning hard into power fantasy on multiple levels. First, it's in the game itself. Characters are meant to be larger than life ass-kicking heroes. It practicallly takes a whole session to build a character in WotC's D&D and you're not meant to die. In classic, you spent a couple minutes rolling your stats and then you had to make it work. If it didn't, you died and started again. Second, it's with the system. An unbalanced system gives players the opportunity to optimize characters and feel like they're smart and "putting one over" on the game. Pandering to consumers this way makes for a happy consumer, and then when you release the products that change the rules and take away those edges, people need to buy the new stuff to stay ahead of the game. Now, I'm probably being judgy. But yeah, when I played WotC's D&D, the whole thing just felt like one big wank compared to classic.

 

[Fandraxx]

I think where WotC lost their balance is not with THAC0, but with the buffet multi-classing and the front-loading character creation. You basically make a D&D character like you would make a deck for Magic. Since most of the mechanics (and often the games themselves, in my experience) revolve around combat, players seem to optimize builds to be exploit advantages with the system.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, and, by the life of me, if by some magical miracle I've got all the time in the future to work on silly videos, the way "anyone can do anything" with basically zero restrictions has destroyed D&D post 3rd-edition is absolutely becoming a titanic of a video. I've basically been waiting to rant about it since the channel started.

And, while I do agree that Thac0 is basically just fancy math, that TSR actually used that math to generate differences between classes and whatnot is why I feel like it's part of the overall balance, but I can see the argument that it isn't.

 

[JustKneller]

by the life of me, if by some magical miracle I've got all the time in the future to work on silly videos, the way "anyone can do anything" with basically zero restrictions has destroyed D&D post 3rd-edition is absolutely becoming a titanic of a video

Yeah, that's a total fucking rabbit hole with a million different directions. However, I don't think a lot of it matters. I think the crux of WotC's agenda, culturally speaking, is what kind of gamer is the most popular ttrpg of all time going to create. Like, you can totally get the classic experience through the old editions, but finding players who can wrap their head around that concept of a game is going to be tough when a player's likely gateway into the hobby encourages them to be a bunch of Veruca Salts. My nephew (13 y.o.) is getting into D&D, but 5th edition, and he's suckered in by all the bells and whistles. I could show him B/X and he would think it was "inferior" because you can't do "everything" that modern D&D lets you do. The concept of not being the larger than life center of the universe of a game is just such a foreign concept. Like, why would anyone want to play in a world that doesn't revolve around them. There's your video, gaming from intellectualism to narcissism.

And, while I do agree that Thac0 is basically just fancy math, that TSR actually used that math to generate differences between classes and whatnot is why I feel like it's part of the overall balance, but I can see the argument that it isn't.

Here's the thing, and I'm referencing 3e on this one, I think that WotC might actually differentiate classes further, especially when you factor in all the bonus APR. In 3e, a 10th level fighter has two attacks at +10 and +5, and a wizard has one attack at +5. In B/X a fighter has one attack at THAC0 12 and the wizard has one attack at THAC0 17, still a 5 point difference, but the WotC fighter also gets the extra attack. The gap grows further as levels progress. A capped out B/X Fighter and Wizard only have a four point THAC0 difference and both have a single attack., the WotC fighter has three attacks (+14/+9/+4) and the wizard just has two attacks at +7/+2.

I actually think class differentiation was much more muted in classic, especially when you look at first edition. But, this ties into the concept of player vs. character skill and the classic game being more player-oriented. Class differentiation is off the charts in WotC's version (which ties into the buffet multi-classing). In my opinion, classic was meant to have fewer bits and bobs because the game was not meant to be played off your character sheet, but in your head and at the table with others. Classic D&D has very little player frontloading, no character optimization, and is meant to be played at the table. Most of modern D&D gets played when building/optimizing the character, then actual session play is just pointing at stuff on your character sheet like you're ordering off the menu pictures at Denny's.

But, a caveat to that is that the games don't have to play out that way. You can go minimally rolling and maximum roleplaying with any system. My observations just refer to what I've actually observed, and how I see WotC's D&D played at my FLGS.