Decline AD&D Stagnation

[PorkyThePaladin]

So a lot of quality cRPGs over the years have used the AD&D rule-set to implement their systems, games from the Gold Box collection on through the Infinity Engine games to the Neverwinter Nights series, Temple of Elemental Evil, and even games like Knights of the Old Republic. All in all, it's often better than the alternative, when devs have to come up with their own system while also making the game, because the AD&D approach does have some depth and balance to it, with things like AC, THAC0, saving throws, attacks per round, weapon proficiencies, and an expansive collection of diverse spells.

But on the other hand, every time I play a cRPG based on this system nowadays, I can't help but groan at many of its nonsensical conventions that have been around for decades now. I am not an expert on its history, but from what I understand it was created by a bunch of nerdy dudes trying to adopt tabletop wargames to the pen and paper RPG environment. For those times, AD&D was most likely very innovative and good, but it's been so many years since then, surely they could evolve it by now to be more realistic and logical.

What am I talking about? Well, stuff like AC for example. AC works fine when it's obtained from dexterity or class bonuses (because then it simulates agility/dodging ability), but mostly AC is due to wearing better and heavier armor. Obviously wearing heavier armor would make a character less mobile and more likely to be hit, but in AD&D it helps them avoid damage. On the other hand, wearing heavier armor should lower damage received when the enemy's blow does connect, but AC doesn't do that at all. So it's completely counter-intuitive to logic and real life.

Same thing with strength. I am so sick and tired of strength being the main attribute for melee fighters, determining their chances to hit as well as the damage they inflict. Strength has almost nothing to do with actual sword fighting, at least beyond some basic low threshold. Melee weapons aren't dumbbells, if they were that heavy, they wouldn't actually work in combat. They are very light and the damage comes from momentum, leverage, technique and speed, not how hard you swing. What's worse, most other game systems borrow this nonsense from AD&D.

Or how about two weapon fighting? This is often the most powerful build in AD&D systems, with a high number of attacks per round and penalties that can be overcome with higher levels. But go watch some youtube videos on this by people who study and practice actual melee combat, and they all pretty much agree that this isn't really plausible (unless you use the 2nd weapon defensively like a parrying dirk). Aside from historical accuracy, it makes no sense from a logical or common sense perspective other than on some really silly level (2 weapons = more attacks). It's not like people just stand there and wail away at each other as fast as they can and even then you can do it better with one weapon.

And this is just basic stuff. Would it be too much to ask them to simulate weapon effectiveness against diffrent types of armor, so for example blunt weapons like maces and warhammers would excel against plate mail while swords would be at a big disadvantage unless you used a special technique? A game released in 1992 did this (Darklands) but AD&D still can't implement it.

 

[Infinitron]

1) You're confusing AD&D with D&D in general. AD&D hasn't been used in a CRPG for 15 years, which makes this post seem rather funny.

2)

And this is just basic stuff. Would it be too much to ask them to simulate weapon effectiveness against diffrent types of armor, so for example blunt weapons like maces and warhammers would excel against plate mail while swords would be at a big disadvantage unless you used a special technique? A game released in 1992 did this (Darklands) but AD&D still can't implement it.

Actually, it does: http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Plate_Mail

Slashing modifier -3 bonus to armor class.

3)

Obviously wearing heavier armor would make a character less mobile and more likely to be hit, but in AD&D it helps them avoid damage.

It does, but in 3rd Edition D&D it also sets a maximum cap on your Dexterity bonus, which can end up lowering your AC.

 

[Athelas]

What am I talking about? Well, stuff like AC for example. AC works fine when it's obtained from dexterity or class bonuses (because then it simulates agility/dodging ability), but mostly AC is due to wearing better and heavier armor. Obviously wearing heavier armor would make a character less mobile and more likely to be hit, but in AD&D it helps them avoid damage. On the other hand, wearing heavier armor should lower damage received when the enemy's blow does connect, but AC doesn't do that at all. So it's completely counter-intuitive to logic and real life.

It is, but that doesn't mean it's bad from a game play perspective. Quite the opposite, the almost complete lack of any elements of damage reduction in say the IE games allows for many attacks to be potentially lethal, which can force you to stay on your toes even if the chance to hit is quite low.

 

[ArchAngel]

AD&D was only used until BG2. After that they used D&D but most of these "problems" were not changed.
1. Armor system makes sense if you consider being hit means your squishy body being hit, not your armor. That is why in D&D 3+ there was a different kind of attack, the Touch attack that ignored your armor bonuses. And heavier armor in D&D 3+ let you use less of your maximum Dex bonus towards AC and that heavier armor also slows down your movement.
2. One can see Strength as giving you speed you are talking about while the rest is coming from your level and class bonuses. More Strength, more speed. Also you will tire slower after swings so your combat efficiency stays the same.
3. Two weapon fighting - well this is a fantasy system. While it is not that realistic it is within high fantasy realism.

 

[Infinitron]

Anyway, I'm not sure it's actually true that "most other game systems" borrow the convention that Strength --> higher chance to hit. That seems like a pretty D&D-exclusive thing to me.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Anyway, I'm not sure it's actually true that "most other game systems" borrow the convention that Strength --> higher chance to hit. That seems like a pretty D&D-exclusive thing to me.

TDE has strength as one of the three attributes affecting the base attack value.

 

[Infinitron]

Anyway, I'm not sure it's actually true that "most other game systems" borrow the convention that Strength --> higher chance to hit. That seems like a pretty D&D-exclusive thing to me.

TDE has strength as one of the three attributes affecting the base attack value.

Yeah, having Strength be one of several attributes that affects accuracy might be more common. Dragon Age does that too.

 

[Night Goat]

Two-weapon fighting is more realistic in 3e, in that it's complete shit.

 

[mondblut]

Another day, another ignoramus who cannot into abstractions.

I am not an expert on its history, but from what I understand it was created by a bunch of nerdy dudes trying to adopt tabletop wargames to the pen and paper RPG environment.

There was no "pen and paper RPG environment" until a bunch of nerdy dudes molded one out of tabletop wargames.

What am I talking about? Well, stuff like AC for example. AC works fine when it's obtained from dexterity or class bonuses (because then it simulates agility/dodging ability), but mostly AC is due to wearing better and heavier armor. Obviously wearing heavier armor would make a character less mobile and more likely to be hit, but in AD&D it helps them avoid damage. On the other hand, wearing heavier armor should lower damage received when the enemy's blow does connect, but AC doesn't do that at all. So it's completely counter-intuitive to logic and real life.

There is no such thing as "enemy's blow" in D&D. There are only "attacks" that deal "damage" to "hit points" if they bypass "armor class". Google "abstraction".

They are very light and the damage comes from momentum, leverage, technique and speed

This is called "level".

Would it be too much to ask them to simulate weapon effectiveness against diffrent types of armor, so for example blunt weapons like maces and warhammers would excel against plate mail while swords would be at a big disadvantage unless you used a special technique? A game released in 1992 did this (Darklands) but AD&D still can't implement it.

D&D armor had different AC vs piercing, cutting and blunt damage since forever. Ask these bright and realistic computer game developers who should know better than mimic that silly D&D nonsense why they failed at copying it.

For 2 weapon fighting, blame drizzt and the non-nerds who fap all over him. It wouldn't be around if RPGs stayed where they belong, among ourselves.

 

[Snorkack]

Anyway, I'm not sure it's actually true that "most other game systems" borrow the convention that Strength --> higher chance to hit. That seems like a pretty D&D-exclusive thing to me.

TDE has strength as one of the three attributes affecting the base attack value.

Strength being one factor for determining combat skill totally makes sense to me, tho. Also the TDE implementation of damage scaling with high strength depending on the weapon used is a good idea imo, and somewhat realistic.

The classic AD&D rules feel a bit outdated indeed. What bugged me the most back in the days is actually the magic system, where you have a fixed number of spells for each level each day. Having a stat like mana pool or astral energy is abstract enough. This approach just felt incredibly artificial and out-of-place.

 

[Somberlain]

D&D hasn't stagnated, it has declined.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

1) You're confusing AD&D with D&D in general. AD&D hasn't been used in a CRPG for 15 years, which makes this post seem rather funny.

Well, then I am glad to be of service to the 3 people who would get that joke.

2)
Actually, it does: http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Plate_Mail

Slashing modifier -3 bonus to armor class.

That is not nearly significant enough to be relevant. I often use slashing weapons in these games and they work just fine against heavily armored opponents because when your AC and THAC0 are both really low as they tend to be at higher levels (where you would typically encounter heavily armored opponents), a -3 bonus is almost nothing. In Darklands, if you didn't switch into a special stance where you looked for chinks in the armor, swords would be next to useless against plate, and the special stance significantly slowed your attacks down.

3)
It does, but in 3rd Edition D&D it also sets a maximum cap on your Dexterity bonus, which can end up lowering your AC.

If your dexterity is maxed out at 18, you get what, +4 bonus to AC from it? Plate armor gives a way higher bonus than that, so the net effect is still an increase in attack avoidance.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's actually true that "most other game systems" borrow the convention that Strength --> higher chance to hit. That seems like a pretty D&D-exclusive thing to me.

I was talking about strength being the main attribute for melee combat: "determining their chances to hit as well as the damage they inflict", which is very common in games and not very accurate. With proper technique, it doesn't take much strength to deliver a lethal blow with a melee weapon. Any strength beyond that is superfluous.

1. Armor system makes sense if you consider being hit means your squishy body being hit, not your armor. That is why in D&D 3+ there was a different kind of attack, the Touch attack that ignored your armor bonuses.

There is no such thing as "enemy's blow" in D&D. There are only "attacks" that deal "damage" to "hit points" if they bypass "armor class". Google "abstraction".

If that's what they are going for, then that's a really bad abstraction that lumps two completely different things together (attack avoidance and damage stoppage), and how does all this fit with damage reduction stuff like the barbarian's innate ability? You can't just roll a bunch of different crap together and use the abstraction excuse. Might as well just have one number representing the entire combat capability. Even moar abstract.

 

[Somberlain]

That is not nearly significant enough to be relevant. I often use slashing weapons in these games and they work just fine against heavily armored opponents because when your AC and THAC0 are both really low as they tend to be at higher levels (where you would typically encounter heavily armored opponents), a -3 bonus is almost nothing. In Darklands, if you didn't switch into a special stance where you looked for chinks in the armor, swords would be next to useless against plate, and the special stance significantly slowed your attacks down.

Actually, -3 is a really noticeable bonus, unless you are playing a really high level campaign. Also, Full Plate has even bigger bonuses.

If that's what they are going for, then that's a really bad abstraction that lumps two completely different things together (attack avoidance and damage stoppage), and how does all this fit with damage reduction stuff like the barbarian's innate ability? You can't just roll a bunch of different crap together and use the abstraction excuse. Might as well just have one number representing the entire combat capability. Even moar abstract.

Yes, damage resistance is a different thing, but in D&D failing to beat someone's AC is an abstraction for all kinds of "failing to do damage", which includes hitting but not penetrating armor, dodging etc. That's a logical system that works perfectly, so armor doesn't need inherent damage resistance.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Actually, -3 is a really noticeable bonus, unless you are playing a really high level campaign. Also, Full Plate has even bigger bonuses.

Well, I noticed that mechanic in Darklands right away, but never noticed it in gameplay in any of the D&D games I've played. Characters with slashing weapons hit plated enemies all the time without problems.

Yes, damage resistance is a different thing, but in D&D failing to beat someone's AC is an abstraction for all kinds of "failing to do damage", which includes hitting but not penetrating armor, dodging etc. That's a logical system that works perfectly, so armor doesn't need inherent damage resistance.

It's a bad abstraction that doesn't accurately represent how things actually work. Avoiding damage (via dodging for example) is more of a binary thing, you either avoid it or you don't and take damage. Damage stoppage/resistance/absorption (via armor) is a completely different thing that's not nearly as binary. Sure, sometimes the armor and/or shield can completely stop the weapon, but if you take a direct blow to the armor, you can still get damaged, perhaps less so than if you weren't wearing it, perhaps not, but you can suffer serious injury (for example a warhammer striking an armored chest plate and still cracking the ribs underneath). So to me, rolling these two things together into one is very iffy.

 

[Copper]

Nu World of Darkness rolled strength into most melee damage as well - although that's a far more abstract system where you roll once to hit against their armour/etc, any extra successes are inflicted as a point of damage.

 

[baturinsky]

AC/TH is not about making a hit that connects, it's about making a hit that does significiant damage. With heavier armor more hits will be deflected by armor, or enemy will have to try to hit weak spots. On the other hand, with greater strength you are more likely to just break through enemy block or armor.

This system is not very intuitive, but it's simple, and being mechanically simple is the main appeal of D20.

 

[ArchAngel]

1. Armor system makes sense if you consider being hit means your squishy body being hit, not your armor. That is why in D&D 3+ there was a different kind of attack, the Touch attack that ignored your armor bonuses.

There is no such thing as "enemy's blow" in D&D. There are only "attacks" that deal "damage" to "hit points" if they bypass "armor class". Google "abstraction".

If that's what they are going for, then that's a really bad abstraction that lumps two completely different things together (attack avoidance and damage stoppage), and how does all this fit with damage reduction stuff like the barbarian's innate ability? You can't just roll a bunch of different crap together and use the abstraction excuse. Might as well just have one number representing the entire combat capability. Even moar abstract.

It is not bad, just different. Very few systems truly simulate real life and those have very few players. Most players (both PnP and cRPG) just want something that is usable and at least looks like a simulation.

And if you find armor system bad why don't you complain about hit and damage system as well?
AD&D does not roll for part of body hit, different body parts don't have different armor value. When you are hit, there is not system that checks if you died, got a flesh would or something more serious. No system to check if you got into shock, or panicked or something else.
When we look at hit rolls, no system takes into account factors like sun going into eyes, wind power, if you just got stung by a bee or you got a sudden erection.

The point is that all system are an abstractions and none of them are bad, they just offer a different level of it.

 

[baturinsky]

Also, there are in-system ways to tweak it to something more comfortable for you.

If you don't want strength to govern hit chance, you can take Weapon Finesse feat. If you want to convert high TH into more damage, you can take Power Attack feat etc. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats
And DM can do the same with mobs. And there is a lot of ways to make combat more than just chipping down enemy HP count http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat.

 

[Obama Phone 3]

So a lot of quality cRPGs over the years have used the AD&D rule-set to implement their systems, games from the Gold Box collection on through the Infinity Engine games to the Neverwinter Nights series, Temple of Elemental Evil, and even games like Knights of the Old Republic. All in all, it's often better than the alternative, when devs have to come up with their own system while also making the game, because the AD&D approach does have some depth and balance to it, with things like AC, THAC0, saving throws, attacks per round, weapon proficiencies, and an expansive collection of diverse spells.

But on the other hand, every time I play a cRPG based on this system nowadays, I can't help but groan at many of its nonsensical conventions that have been around for decades now. I am not an expert on its history, but from what I understand it was created by a bunch of nerdy dudes trying to adopt tabletop wargames to the pen and paper RPG environment. For those times, AD&D was most likely very innovative and good, but it's been so many years since then, surely they could evolve it by now to be more realistic and logical.

What am I talking about? Well, stuff like AC for example. AC works fine when it's obtained from dexterity or class bonuses (because then it simulates agility/dodging ability), but mostly AC is due to wearing better and heavier armor. Obviously wearing heavier armor would make a character less mobile and more likely to be hit, but in AD&D it helps them avoid damage. On the other hand, wearing heavier armor should lower damage received when the enemy's blow does connect, but AC doesn't do that at all. So it's completely counter-intuitive to logic and real life.

Same thing with strength. I am so sick and tired of strength being the main attribute for melee fighters, determining their chances to hit as well as the damage they inflict. Strength has almost nothing to do with actual sword fighting, at least beyond some basic low threshold. Melee weapons aren't dumbbells, if they were that heavy, they wouldn't actually work in combat. They are very light and the damage comes from momentum, leverage, technique and speed, not how hard you swing. What's worse, most other game systems borrow this nonsense from AD&D.

Or how about two weapon fighting? This is often the most powerful build in AD&D systems, with a high number of attacks per round and penalties that can be overcome with higher levels. But go watch some youtube videos on this by people who study and practice actual melee combat, and they all pretty much agree that this isn't really plausible (unless you use the 2nd weapon defensively like a parrying dirk). Aside from historical accuracy, it makes no sense from a logical or common sense perspective other than on some really silly level (2 weapons = more attacks). It's not like people just stand there and wail away at each other as fast as they can and even then you can do it better with one weapon.

And this is just basic stuff. Would it be too much to ask them to simulate weapon effectiveness against diffrent types of armor, so for example blunt weapons like maces and warhammers would excel against plate mail while swords would be at a big disadvantage unless you used a special technique? A game released in 1992 did this (Darklands) but AD&D still can't implement it.

Blizzard wiped out AD&D in games.

 

[Telengard]

Not only is AD&D built around strategy games, it's also based on old-school adventure stories set in the Dark Ages. Now, for those not in the know, that is a time when weapons technology was not that advanced, and damage even with swords was mostly based around slamming large objects into your enemy with as much force as possible. The fancy shmancy weapons dance that is shown in the movies and that modern games are built around is a much later tech development. And in that later time, weapons technology allowed for lighter, more agile weapons that could bring in a person's agility and balance. (The fact that the current holders of D&D have shifted the timeline forwards but haven't changed the core rules is a different story.)

Plus, RPGs build around DR and trauma rather than HP and AC have been around since the 80s and 90s. They just remain unpopular due to the amount of detail involved. Because, while games with such a focus on detail cause lots of nerdgasms, it also causes the game to become an unintuitive grindfest as soon as combat actually starts. If it wasn't so, then Millennium's End would be the most popular RPG of all time.

Computer games don't fair much better, either, since - even though the computer handles all the tables and excessive rolling - people tend to like to understand what their chance to hit and damage is rather than guessing.

 

[mondblut]

There is no such thing as "enemy's blow" in D&D. There are only "attacks" that deal "damage" to "hit points" if they bypass "armor class". Google "abstraction".

If that's what they are going for, then that's a really bad abstraction that lumps two completely different things together (attack avoidance and damage stoppage)

It does its job (statistically simulating the process of squad-level high fantasy combat via means easily computable by human players). What else is needed?

and how does all this fit with damage reduction stuff like the barbarian's innate ability? You can't just roll a bunch of different crap together and use the abstraction excuse.

You can. Admittingly, throwing more crap in there over the course of 2 decades (such as barbarians in question) does mess the things up eventually.

Might as well just have one number representing the entire combat capability. Even moar abstract.

There is a golden middle between shit being too simple and thus boring, and shit being to cumbersome and thus boring. D&D nailed it pretty fine back in the day.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

And if you find armor system bad why don't you complain about hit and damage system as well?

I often do, but some abstractions are just highly abstract, whereas others are counter-intuitive. The latter bother me more.

Also, there are in-system ways to tweak it to something more comfortable for you.

If you don't want strength to govern hit chance, you can take Weapon Finesse feat. If you want to convert high TH into more damage, you can take Power Attack feat etc. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats
And DM can do the same with mobs. And there is a lot of ways to make combat more than just chipping down enemy HP count http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat.

I actually do this, but it still doesn't work properly. For example, if you take the Finesse feat, it only affects your attack chance, not your damage, so you still need to raise your strength to become a good melee fighter. You can do what you suggest and compensate with Power Attack but then your character will be weaker compared to a pure strength character.

It does its job (statistically simulating the process of squad-level high fantasy combat via means easily computable by human players). What else is needed?

Something that is more in tune with how things really work? That's what makes for a good abstraction in my book.

 

[Average Manatee]

What am I talking about? Well, stuff like AC for example. AC works fine when it's obtained from dexterity or class bonuses (because then it simulates agility/dodging ability), but mostly AC is due to wearing better and heavier armor. Obviously wearing heavier armor would make a character less mobile and more likely to be hit, but in AD&D it helps them avoid damage. On the other hand, wearing heavier armor should lower damage received when the enemy's blow does connect, but AC doesn't do that at all. So it's completely counter-intuitive to logic and real life.

Armor deflects blows. Attacks have to be carefully aimed to weak points to bypass armor.

Same thing with strength. I am so sick and tired of strength being the main attribute for melee fighters, determining their chances to hit as well as the damage they inflict. Strength has almost nothing to do with actual sword fighting, at least beyond some basic low threshold. Melee weapons aren't dumbbells, if they were that heavy, they wouldn't actually work in combat. They are very light and the damage comes from momentum, leverage, technique and speed, not how hard you swing. What's worse, most other game systems borrow this nonsense from AD&D.

Strength still lets you be faster and put more force behind it. It's more applicable than any other stat. And Fighters gain far more bonuses from leveling than their strength allows, so its still mostly based on character skill rather than the stats.

Or how about two weapon fighting? This is often the most powerful build in AD&D systems, with a high number of attacks per round and penalties that can be overcome with higher levels. But go watch some youtube videos on this by people who study and practice actual melee combat, and they all pretty much agree that this isn't really plausible (unless you use the 2nd weapon defensively like a parrying dirk). Aside from historical accuracy, it makes no sense from a logical or common sense perspective other than on some really silly level (2 weapons = more attacks). It's not like people just stand there and wail away at each other as fast as they can and even then you can do it better with one weapon.

Umm... no. TWF is horrible, horrible. Two-Handed weapons are basically always superior, and sword-and-shield is usually superior as well. TWF is kind of a joke except with some ridiculous twinking.

And this is just basic stuff. Would it be too much to ask them to simulate weapon effectiveness against diffrent types of armor, so for example blunt weapons like maces and warhammers would excel against plate mail while swords would be at a big disadvantage unless you used a special technique? A game released in 1992 did this (Darklands) but AD&D still can't implement it.

D&D does have modifiers for this, but keep in mind that 90% of the time you are fighting magical monsters and shit.

 

[Telengard]

To be more specific for someone who hasn't played the DR-fest games of old, DR complicates success. With AC, a player rolls an attack die, and a hit is a hit. Your damage roll may suck, but you will hit when you roll a hit. DR erodes that, making a hit not necessarily a real hit. One must make a second roll that is over DR of the target for a hit to be a real hit. So, for instance, a player rolls a 20, gets excited, but then rolls a 5 for damage against a creature with 6 DR. No damage on a 20. Serious disappointment and frustration.

The more rolls to achieve a hit that are made necessary, the less control people feel they have over the game system, even if they are killing the enemy at the exact same rate as the other game. Because, under DR, something they thought was a success can suddenly become a failure, yanking away their success.

Thus, the most successful DR systems are the ones that convert damage types rather than stopping damage (which is actually also much more realistic than erasing damage). However, having multiple damage types on top of DR has just compounded the complexity of the game, putting it well on the way into the grindzone. Plus, DR systems without conversion damage lend themselves easily into tank n' spank combat, since without conversion, concentrating on DR and defense means taking no damage from a nigh infinite number of hits. Which is itself horribly unrealistic while also slowing combat way down while people wail on each other endlessly and uselessly until a critical hit is finally rolled.

Old-school d&d was a game of Arthurian and Conan-style legends (for what is LOTR but another Arthurian legend); tales where Strength was all, and there were warriors of distinct skill levels, and people wailed on each other in armor for - sometimes - hours on end with all their might. When people took big swings and threw themselves bodily out of the way in order to dodge. Old-school d&d represented that well. It does what it's supposed to do. But the key is, it does what it's supposed to do and it does it in a fun way, because the group that originally made the game fucking knew how to design. DR may be more realistic, but it slows combat way down, since nobody is doing any damage after the enemy's DR reduces everything, plus makes it more fiddly with extra calculations, all while reducing peoples' feel for control over their attacks. AC may be more abstract, but it functions in a game better than does DR. Because AC is a more nimble and expressive element of design than is DR.

 

[Loriac]

The classic AD&D rules feel a bit outdated indeed. What bugged me the most back in the days is actually the magic system, where you have a fixed number of spells for each level each day. Having a stat like mana pool or astral energy is abstract enough. This approach just felt incredibly artificial and out-of-place.

Rhialto the Marvellous says, 'hi, welcome' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Earth

Arguably vancian magic was a very good choice to make magic seem more mysterious rather than just an alternative 'special weapons' system where mages are pseudo-artillery/grenadiers. It emphasised the role-playing aspects as opposed to the wargaming ones. However, with cRPGs arguably defining the role-playing paradigm these days (in particular, MMOs) we have gone back to people arguing for magic to be a variant dps system rather than something that is designed to break the rules in very specific and well controlled ways.