Complexity vs. Simplicity in Character Design

[GMMichael]

I think folks want more differentiation than flavor wave for the mechanics. Coming up with a core foundation that allows for it is tough.

Okay. What if the flavor-wave were the rule?

"Bards cannot cast spells until a physical motion action has been made, followed by a reading of the emotions of onlookers."

Side note: this might imply that nothing happens if a bard casts a spell in the woods and no one is there to hear it.

 

[Aldarc]

My favorite is still 3E/PF1 and if I could design a game it would use those as guides, but include something like bounded accuracy to tame the wildness. I don't mind disparate mechanics for classes, but I do want them to play well with each other. Both across the battlefield and while multi-classing I mean. For example, Paizo tried a lot of this with the gunslinger, summoner, alchemist etc... It got pretty wonky with some classes working the system in unintended ways. PF2 really reigned it in for a silo'd approach like 4E. I dont want to call that simplistic, but it is very templated, which I find too homogenizing. Points for PF2 though for avoiding the unintended wonkiness of adding material to a solid foundation. There has to be a point between them?

In terms of the d20 system, I preferred how True 20 did character building. It had three base classes: Warrior, Expert, and Adept. Much like with d20 Modern, it alternated levels between Feats and Talents, with Talents basically being what were previously class features in 3e. But you could multiclass as you willed. Unfortunately, it got pretty weighed-down by the archaic design choices and talent trees of 3e (e.g., Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, etc.). Nowadays, it would probably be better if True 20 was built along the lines of either 5e D&D or Pathfinder 2.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm going to pick on D&D, but this is applicable to far more than just D&D. I'm talking about the design decision between complexity vs. simplicity, specifically around core character design.

By and large, D&D takes the simple route. Most classes of the same archetype are the same mechanically for their powers. What is the difference between a cleric and a wizard? Armor? They both use the exact same mechanic for spellcasting. As does every other caster other than warlock (pre-1DND). Even half casters use the same mechanic. And that's Vancian. I don't blame D&D for that; because it's D&D it pretty much has to keep certain sacred cows of design sacred. That, and because it's the biggest name out there, it has to be accessible. If every class had a completely different mechanic for it's powers, it would be more stuff for players to try to learn. And that would turn folks off.

On the other had, having a more complex system offers a ton of more flexibility and makes each class feel unique. Sometimes I feel D&D's big strength (accessibility) is one of its greatest weaknesses. The trick is finding the sweet spot, and that's gonna vary from person to person. I've found that once you get away the assumptions that each class needs to follow the same rule, doors open to really add flavor and the opportunity to allow the class to feel more on-theme, so-to-speak.

I more or less agree with this in principle, but I'm already seeing where it'll run aground: more character options usually mean more complexity in character generation, which is for many players (and some DMs!) a big-time negative.

If each class uses different mechanics and yet those mechanics within themselves are simple in char-gen and easy to learn thereafter, this problem somewhat goes away as most of the time a player only needs to learn the mechanics for the one character they're playing at the time. The problems come IME when even the mechanics for one character get too complex - I found this in 3e with all the feats and abilities the player of even a supposedly-simple Fighter type had to keep track of.

Or, another option is that where possible some of the mechanics remain DM-side; an example being Clerics turning undead in 1e. The player knows the Cleric has the ability but has no idea of the game-mechanics behind it; in play the player simply declares the Cleric is turning undead and rolls a d20, on which the DM processes the mechanics, maybe asks for some associated rolls e.g. to determine how many are affected, and narrates what happens next.

For example, let's look at the bard. In D&D, it's a typical half caster. Mechanically, no difference in spell casting than a wizard or cleric. They use the same spells, with the same effects, as those classes. "Oh! but my bard casts fireball with their lute, not a twiddle of the fingers like a wizard!"

Yawn. During gameplay, that never comes up. 99.9% of the time it's "I cast X." The same as every other caster.

The Bard IMO has yet to ever work well in terms of design matching intended flavour. A Bard casting fireball, for example, doesn't match the flavour of a minstrel doing magic with sound.

I redesigned them from the ground up (and I'll say right now that my design ain't any better, but I'll posit it's not much worse either), and made them ability based. They don't learn of cast spells as such; rather, they select abilities as they level up and with a few exceptions can use those abilities pretty much at will. Some of these abilities mirror those of Rogues e.g. move silently while others are quasi-magical, explained in the game physics by the Bard being able to harness magic through manipulation of sound.

However, there's drawbacks as well: as all their "magical" abilities are sonic, if the target can't hear or there's a Silence effect in the way, the Bard is hosed. Also, most of these abilities take longer to perform (intentional word use) than a typical spell. And while their combat ability is OK for the first few levels it falls off very rapidly after that.

I'm convinced there's a good Bard design out there that somehow keeps the original 1e idea of a part-Fighter, part-Thief chassis with music and sonic abilities yet which starts at 1st level like all the other classes, but I've yet to either see it or think of it.

Another example is the classic swordmage. In most games, it's pretty much a fighter/magic user hybrid. But if you don't assume you use the same core mechanic for spells, you can build it into a true warrior class that uses magic to augment battle. Therefore, the magic could be tied to the battle itself. The arcane warrior can harness the energies created from the chaos and emotion that is created in battle. These energies are used to power the swordmage's spells, and as the combat encounter progresses, the spells get more powerful and more powerful options are unlocked. Their magic isn't tied to spell slots or spell points, but is tied to how epic the battles are. Like what a warrior would focus on thematically anyway. A warrior won't sit down and study spellbooks, they'd find a way to harness magic from combat directly.

That's an option, but I long ago concluded instead that the swordmage or gish or whatever just isn't something the game handles well and probably never will as long as in-party balance is any consideration. And so, I don't bother trying to design for/around it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've long advocated that thematically different abilities should be represented in mechanically different ways.

I'm near the other end of the spectrum. There are several penalties including ease of use and speed of resolution of expressing things in different ways. I therefore think they should be represented in mechanically different ways if and only if the thematic difference is a key part of what the game is about and representing this part of the difference actually adds to the game.

In an irony I'm perfectly fine with oD&D casting using different mechanics; your spells were loot and should be mysterious. On the other hand by the time of 3.0 when spells are mundane, reliable, and PCs get to choose them, and that the saving throws are predictable aspects of the target rather than properties of the effect of the spell I'd say that different mechanics got in the way.

And to be fair, picking from a list of spells is already a lot of character differentiation, if there are enough spells. The character that can cast Animate Objects and the one that casts Sleet Storm are very different in their combat applications. You can get away with a lot by aggressively pruning effects lists between classes.

Which (plus the synergies) is IMO where the differences should be - in what they do rather than the mechanical representation.

 

[TwoSix]

And to be fair, picking from a list of spells is already a lot of character differentiation, if there are enough spells. The character that can cast Animate Objects and the one that casts Sleet Storm are very different in their combat applications. You can get away with a lot by aggressively pruning effects lists between classes.

Yea, I think this is pretty relevant. Even if the core container (i.e. the spell block format) is similar between classes, if those containers are class-siloed AND resolve very differently, both in mechanics and in the fiction, then you can create a pretty distinct play experience, even if the higher-order mechanics are similar-to-identical.

I'm thinking of League of Legends, where each character only has 4 usable abilities (and some passive traits), but there are still 150+ unique characters, and none of them are functionally identical.

If you want to see how to make really distinct play experiences from just a few abilities, look at monsters! There are quite a few monster stat blocks that I think would be more interesting in play than a lot of PCs.

All that being said, I would love to see more asymmetry at the higher levels of character creation. I don't think we'd want it to get to point of the characters using different stats and completely different resolution methods for basic checks, for sure. But some classes having novel movement or exploration abilities, different refresh methods than short rest/long rest, and very focused but powerful play options would be a lot of fun.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And to be fair, picking from a list of spells is already a lot of character differentiation, if there are enough spells. The character that can cast Animate Objects and the one that casts Sleet Storm are very different in their combat applications. You can get away with a lot by aggressively pruning effects lists between classes.

Which (plus the synergies) is IMO where the differences should be - in what they do rather than the mechanical representation.

Maybe, but that just doesn't do it for me. They both still use the same spell lists, with spells that do the exact same thing. Just because the wizard may cast fireball and fly and the bard casts shield and charm person isn't differentiation to me because literally the next day they can swap (which ones they prepare). Where's the difference?

That's not a differentiation in classes, that's a differentiation in what spells the player happened to choose that night. Literally the same thing two wizards could do. Obviously there isn't any difference in the classes with two wizards, because they are the same class.

To me, the difference needs to be in the class itself. Unless I'm misreading what you're saying.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe, but that just doesn't do it for me. They both still use the same spell lists, with spells that do the exact same thing. Just because the wizard may cast fireball and fly and the bard casts shield and charm person isn't differentiation to me because literally the next day they can swap (which ones they prepare). Where's the difference?

That's not a differentiation in classes, that's a differentiation in what spells the player happened to choose that night. Literally the same thing two wizards could do. Obviously there isn't any difference in the classes with two wizards, because they are the same class.

To me, the difference needs to be in the class itself. Unless I'm misreading what you're saying.

From my reading, I think they're assuming a game where those types of abilities are siloed, and where you can't swap between the abilities on a day-to day basis. I'm pretty sure that's what @Pedantic meant by "aggressively pruning lists between classes".

If ONLY the wizard has fireball and fly, and ONLY the bard has charm person and suggestion, than you can see a greater class distinction while still using the same overall structure between classes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

From my reading, I think they're assuming a game where those types of abilities are siloed, and where you can't swap between the abilities on a day-to day basis. I'm pretty sure that's what @Pedantic meant by "aggressively pruning lists between classes".

If ONLY the wizard has fireball and fly, and ONLY the bard has charm person and suggestion, than you can see a greater class distinction while still using the same overall structure between classes.

Ah. OK. I was misreading then.

 

[Pedantic]

From my reading, I think they're assuming a game where those types of abilities are siloed, and where you can't swap between the abilities on a day-to day basis. I'm pretty sure that's what @Pedantic meant by "aggressively pruning lists between classes".

If ONLY the wizard has fireball and fly, and ONLY the bard has charm person and suggestion, than you can see a greater class distinction while still using the same overall structure between classes.

I don't actually think preparation is an issue so much as class specific spell lists (or lists assembled from smaller thematic lists, like "the fire school or anger domain," if you plan for expansion and don't want to risk the 3.5 issue of not providing more Wu Jen spells).

 

[Emberashh]

I'm convinced there's a good Bard design out there that somehow keeps the original 1e idea of a part-Fighter, part-Thief chassis with music and sonic abilities yet which starts at 1st level like all the other classes, but I've yet to either see it or think of it.

For LNO I found that opening the concept of the Bard to all kinds of artists (as well as the mechanical chassis of a Psionic type class) made for pretty decent core idea to build a class around.

Not only covers more potential character types, but it helped make it easier to develop a core identity that these characters can unite around. With it using the same Psionic type mechanics, all that was necessary was finding a means to differentiate it in comparison to the other Psionics, and that wasn't too difficult.

In LNO, Bards operate in a relatively unique niche whereby they make use of both Mana and Stamina simultaneously to empower their psionic abilities. (Whereas the Monk and Hedge Mage use Mana and the Mystic and Pilgrim Stamina, exclusively)

Due to how both energies are raised, this naturally inclines Bards towards the "skill monkey" direction, but players also have the option to neglect that purisuit and instead go for one or the other, which will make their psionics less potent, but will still allow them to be viable as they'll be able to act more as a conventional mage or martial type.

And meanwhile in the scheme of all the classes, Bards run a versatile gamut depending on how the player wants to play. String Sworn is the more classical Bard experience, mixed with some healthy dashes of Kung Fu Hustle type shenanigans, but you could also go for Woad Scribe, using paint to buff your allies and manifest wonderful defensive "living" art pieced, or you could go Skald and literally insult your enemies to death.

And then, because I couldn't resist, theres the Game Master, sort of a Bard take on the Wild Magic Sorcerer in 5e, who not only leans on the games-as-art angle, but also brings the more overt thief-like qualities into the class.

While it may not be ideal for everyone, the more I kept working at this design the more it kept making sense, to me at least, for it to be this way, so, YMMV.