What is an elegant system?

[innerdude]

To me elegance is much of what has already been discussed (streamlined, providing multiple viable resolutions with the fewest options, being "predictable" in expected workings), but there's also a hard to quantify element in RPG "elegance" where the "thing" matches the expectations in play. Meaning, the rules describe the system as working a certain way, and I'll be darned if it doesn't actually PLAY that way.

For example: Umbran's of the opinion that most of the 3.x D&D heritage is pretty much the same---but I find Fantasy Craft FAR more "elegant" than anything else in the 3.x line, despite being slightly more complex than even Pathfinder. The reason for it is that each rules decision / point of access does what it sets out to do, which adds to the "Predictability" factor.

Elegance most definitely encompasses the idea that when you read what a mechanic does on the page, you're naturally able to intuit how it will work in play.

 

[ahayford]

Elegance is going to be what you think it is. I think Pathfinder is elegant and I know I'm going to get disagreement on it, but that's how it is.

IMHO, I don't believe the definition of "elegant" is debatable. I stick to my one sentence definition above. You may think Pathfinder is a good, fun system....as do I, but I don't think its particularly elegant.

 

[Corathon]

What other systems would you consider to be elegant? What makes them elegant?

BRP Call of Cthulhu, in the sense of "Pleasingly ingenious and simple."
Want to do anything? Roll percentile dice.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For me, elegance in design is covering the most relevant ground with the least amount of fuss. If the problem space is simple enough, the simple solution is neither elegant nor inelegant, but merely appropriately simple. Whereas something that is going to cover a set of ground, no matter what, is more likely to be servicable than elegant. It's not even trying for elegance. Until you unite both coverage and smoothness as twin goals, elegance is irrelevant.

For example, in Red Box D&D, the classes, strictly speaking from archetypes, don't even raise the question of elegance. They don't easily cover all the characters that anyone would want play, but don't pretend to, either. But if you look at it from the perspective of "get people into the game quickly with a few varied choices," then the simple set of classes that work together is quite elegant.

You can see the flipside of this in Hero System (and GURPS to a slightly lesser extent). There is nothing terribly elegant about character generation in Hero. It intends to cover everything, and does a pretty good job of it. It's gotten more consistent as it goes, making it easier to intuit and remember, but this is is only "elegant" in the way that, say, an electrical specification can be consistent. However, in play, with a little bit of experience, Hero can be very elegant (within the limits of that great coverage of area). Nor is this limited to older games. Burning Wheel is a giant kludge in char gen (but getting better), yet mostly elegant in play.

I find that a lot of games that people call "elegant" actually just don't do certain things and/or roll them up into GM fiat. Systems that are coarse grained are often this way, when pushed outside their coverage limits. Toon is a striking exception, managing to fully cover playing much of the early to mid cartoon characters with the minimum of fuss.

 

[Libramarian]

Two definitions:
1) A game is elegant if it does what you want it to do without unnecessary rules effort
2) A game that appears in the abstract to be mathematically or conceptually pleasing in its simplicity

The first one is clearly the most important insofar as games are meant to be played. I have developed a skepticism with regard to (1) necessarily following from (2). For one reason, I think that a sort of design that most people would call inelegant according to (2) -- modular subsystems using different dice -- can actually have advantages with regard to rules effort in play. Using different dice for different procedures makes them easier to separate mentally and remember. The human mind doesn't work with systems like a computer: it likes big, chunky categories, with rough edges between them. I like that in AD&D you use d100 for thief skills, d20 for attack rolls, and d6 for surprise. The different dice serve as physical anchors for the different concepts. I don't like everything jumbled together into a hash of d20+mod>DC. But I only have an undergrad degree in psychology so what do I know.

 

[Desdichado]

The first one is clearly the most important insofar as games are meant to be played. I have developed a skepticism with regard to (1) necessarily following from (2). For one reason, I think that a sort of design that most people would call inelegant according to (2) -- modular subsystems using different dice -- can actually have advantages with regard to rules effort in play. Using different dice for different procedures makes them easier to separate mentally and remember. The human mind doesn't work with systems like a computer: it likes big, chunky categories, with rough edges between them. I like that in AD&D you use d100 for thief skills, d20 for attack rolls, and d6 for surprise. The different dice serve as physical anchors for the different concepts. I don't like everything jumbled together into a hash of d20+mod>DC. But I only have an undergrad degree in psychology so what do I know.

Not liking something is not equivalent to it being inelegant. Preferring something inelegant is perfectly fine. Saying that something is elegant just because you prefer it to something else is a bit more dubious. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the notion of "roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to a target number" as a resolution mechanic for almost everything in the game is inelegant. The d20 system, when it debuted, was almost universally praised for its elegance.

Elegance and simplicity are two different things, though. Nobody would argue that--no matter how elegant it may be--the d20 system is simple. And as it progressed and more and more things were layered into it (especially feats and spells, which were basically independent and separate rule subsystems--the opposite of elegance) its hard to argue that it retained its elegance.

But I'd also take exception with the main thrust of your remarks. Having a consistent and similar (and yes, elegant!) approach made d20 much easier to remember than a bunch of disparate subsystems. And where it failed to really deliver that same consistency and elegance (or where it muddied it up with too many weird modifiers and other exceptional details, a la grappling) it was difficult. But before it got bogged down with too many add-on rules subsystems, that was the exception rather than the rule. And the fact that making an attack, making a skill check, making an ability check, rolling for initiative, and making a saving throw were all basically the same rule hardly made it difficult to remember how to do any of them. In fact, I find the suggestion pretty funny. I LOLed at the very notion.

From a flavor perspective, or for whatever other reason, you may not prefer it. But that hardly makes it inelegant.

 

[Evenglare]

Even though I dont play it much, I think one of the most elegant systems out there is GURPS. The foundation of the system is so mind boggling simple. Sure with D20 it's roll a d20 and add mods, but with that there are multiple subsystems , feats, magic systems, etc etc. But in gurps everything is a skill and you roll 3d6 under the number you want. Admittedly it CAN get complex, but the basis of the system is easily learnable in minutes.

 

[enrious]

For me, elegant is the ICONS system. It allows me to play a game without the rules getting in the way, while still providing a credible depiction of the genre.

 

[amerigoV]

I have found Savage Worlds to be very Elegant. We have occasional "mini-cons" where people play in a couple of games in one day and people easily jump between genres without the rules creating a "clunk" (just this past weekend we had one - I ran a Star Wars game and the other GM ran Vietnam (horror) all with the same system).


One place in particular I see elegance in SW is the way the game reinforces people engaging at the table. There are many "pieces" that all build on each other (vs. just being independent pieces). For example

The acing/exploding dice draw people's attention. When someone keeps picking up a die and rolling it again, everyone pays attention. There is no such thing as a throw-away roll.

Also, rolling a 1/1 (1 on the two dice) means something BAD has happened - again, everyone turns to find out what sh*t just hit the fan.

The Bennies allow a reroll or to soak damage. Usually they are spent at key moments in the game, again drawing people's attention.

You get more Bennies by roleplaying to your hindrances, which pulls people into the story and away from metagaming.

There is an Edge that PCs can share Bennies - people pay more attention to the situation as their pile of Bennies may help the player who is low.

Initiative uses cards - it works much like D&D's initiative, but its visual - people can easily track where they are in the order and it puts focus on the game (vs. "oh, its my turn now, lets me see...."). Plus the crowd cheers or groans when a Joker comes up.

Finally, the system runs so well on the GM side (the mooks are up, shaken or down) that my eyes are on the table/players and not in my notes/rulebook. During my Star Wars game, the only reference I had to the rules was a chart for a chase scene and I had a few stats for the LAAT's (weapons).

To me, that is elegance - everything building towards a positive game experience.

 

[Glyfair]

Two games come to mind when I think about elegant games.

Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant is one. A very simple system, that can cover a wide range of actions. It is an excellent beginning game system. It even use the most basic randomizer, coins.

The second also has ties to Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha. That is Heroquest. One basic mechanic that covers all conflicts, with a long resolution variation, and short single roll variation. A character generation system whose main variation is "write an 100 word description of your character and what he does." Once you delve into magic systems you can hit some complexity, but they certainly could be eliminated and brought back to the primary mechanic, if the group choses.

Those are what I think of when I think of elegant.