@robertsconley : Your stuff is always well-polished and fun to read. Thanks for putting it out there. You are a generous person.
Thanks Appreciate the compliment.
For me everything being said falls under "house rules"---which can be fun to tinker with---but I think the original point (of WvAC in AD&D having some good utility) may have gotten lost in the avalanche of home-brewed attempts to improve it.
My opinion that Weapons versus AC was pretty much a house rule when it first appeared in Greyhawk. OD&D had two ways of resolving a hit, and the 1d20 method of level versus AC proved to be the overwhelming favorite over using the chainmail tables.
To me the Greyhawk table was an attempt at reconciling the two methods. Taking the data that was part of the Weapon versus Armor Type and making a compatible version for the 1d20 system.
Greyhawk's WvAC in my opinion is OK. It doesn't have the impact that the Chainmail Man to Man table does because it only giving modifiers in -/+5% increments while the Chainmail version impacts the bell curve of a 2d6 roll.
AD&D's WvAC in my opinion is flawed because of the additional armor types introduced. OD&D was straight forward. No Armor, Shield, Leather, Leather+Shield, Chain, Chain+Shield, Plate, Plate+Shield. Assigning a modifier for AC 6 is the same as saying Leather+Shield.
Not the case with AD&D. To me AD&D's WvAC smells of "It seemed like a good idea at the time" and the modifiers a mathematical expansion of the Greyhawk Table rather than reflect Gygax's opinion on how well a bec-de-corbin would do against Ringmail.
I don't object to AD&D having a WvAC provided that it treated each type of armor separately which each modifier considered in light of the weapon's effectiveness against that type of armor.
What I have come away with from the discussion, and especially
@Beoric 's 4e description, is that there is a segment of the RPG population that
really desires more detailed combat in D&D and won't be satisfied without it. For me, that's a good thing to keep in mind for future discussions (and disagreements). Just like I now have a place in my mental bookshelf for folks who want the opposite: low-effort, rules-light, and story games.
I refereed GURPS for a long time between taking up OD&D in form of S&W and then adding my own rules on top of it. When I did that, I figured that accept OD&D for what it is and not turn into some lite form of GURPS. But there were certain things about my campaigns that I had to have rules for to remain consistent.
Players did things that did not involve combat or spellcasting and wanted be better at some of things in a way that made sense for their class. Hence a skill system that I called abilities.
Another is that players would try things in combat or expected that tactics and weapons would have an impact in various situations. To a point which was well below GURPS + options which I was using before. So came up with some things address those points in a way I could keep consistent. Keeping in mind that it shouldn't overshadow making a to-hit roll and rolling damage. Hence most of it the addition revolved around the idea of that you can do something else if you hit. But if you did, the target would get a save to avoid the bad thing you were about to do with them.
Yet after all that, I still have good players who prefer 5th editions because it has more mechanical fiddly bits to play with. But are glad that it not as much as D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder.
I find that folks, like myself, that can be satisfied playing AD&D (ad infinitum) without requiring rule-alteration seem to be in the minority. Sometimes I wonder why that is so? Why doesn't it get boring or frustrating to me?
Well do you ever weave a basket? Have you ever a played a character in a AD&D campaign where it made sense that they could weave a basket better than other players?
I know it sounds like a joke and basket-weaving trivial. But the answer to those questions is the answer to your question. If you never deal with basket-weaving in the campaign you run or play, then the lack of basket-weaving mechanics is not an issue. If you do deal with basket-weaving then AD&D lack of detail if secondary skills are used can be frustrating. Likewise if a referee wants a campaign that involves basket-weaving as a major component than AD&D can be frustrating even with secondary skills.
The larger issue is "What can I do as my character?". Outside of combat and spellcasting, what do you do as a AD&D player? As a referee how you handle what characters can do outside of combat and spellcasting as a referee?
Basket-weaving can generate laugh but what about writing a sonnet? The treasure map in the hands of an aging lord who under the influence of his young wife who known to persuaded by a dashing romantic courtier. It is a reasonable plan both in terms of the circumstance and fantasy tropes to try to influence the lady by composing a well-written sonnet.
What happens when this happens on a regular basis? How does a character get better at writing sonnets? But if this situation doesn't come up or it so rare that can be handled by a simple roll and adding a relevant attribute modifier.
For me, my ability list reflects what players been doing in my campaigns since the 80s. Just like the expectation that you get better at combat, cast more and better spells, players in my campaign have an expectation that they should be able to get better at things outside of combat and spellcasting. However within the context of D&D as they are not interested in Runequest, GURPS, or other skill based RPG.
It think it may be because I/we have always played with sufficient room for creativity and variation on the content-creation front so that it doesn't grow stale. More over, a fixation on constant challenge in a world that repeatedly frustrates the player's desires probably meshes well with rules that can also be frustrating in their abstraction.
Well as Lord Vreeg observed, that given time the setting will conform to the rules.
I think what had gotten lost over the years was the abstract notion in AD&D and OD&D of a "hit" and it got confused with an actual strike that landed upon an opponent or his armor.
My opinion that the 3 LBBs of OD&D were written as an aide with a lot of things left unstated because they were in common practice among his target audiences. OD&D is silent on what is a "hit". The closest we get what written in Chainmail as it one of the two methods referenced in the 3 LBB of resolving a hit. Even there is not quite clear.
We get this
Which makes it sounds like one die roll equal a single strike of the weapon. This is further reinforced by Jousting rules that follows where you are definitely rolling individual attacks. However we have the advice of "all preceding rules apply". Which means the one-minute round is still in force.
Since the movement rates don't change in man-to-man I am pretty sure it what Gygax would say.
I gamed and refereed a lot of folks over the decades and my observation that most equate a die roll with a swing of their weapons in their mind regardless of what the rules say. I doubt wargamers of the early 70s were any different in this respect.
The point of the above is that the issue has always been unsettled and continues to be unsettled. I would guess that Gygax of 1969 would give a different answer the question of what I am rolling represents than Gygax of 1979. That Perrin, and the other folks would have their own nuanced answer as well.
I use the six second combat round in my Majestic Fantasy rules but in many cases I treat a die roll as an actual swing. The deciding the factor between when the roll is the result of six second of back and forth melee, or a roll a single blow depend on how the player describe their actions. If it just a normal strike for damage, then it is back and forth. If it is an attempt to knock the Goblet of Doom out of the lich's hand. It is a single blow.