Elegant Rules (Forked From: Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...)

[Scott_Rouse]

If you fall into lava you die. No save.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Call me crazy, but I didn't like 3e saves. It's one of the things that lead to the complete domination of save vs death effects.

Edit: I totally agree on the lava rules though! If you fall into lava you die. No save.

 

[Ktulu]

If you fall into lava you die. No save.

Yeah, this was pretty much genius.

 

[jdrakeh]

Unified mechanics can be elegant but sometimes fail to accurately model a good resolution for certain tasks.

This is largely a matter of personal taste, as you note. That said, to me, a unified task resolution system in all ways seems to be more elegant and consistent (especially this latter thing) than multiple task resolution systems seemingly implemented for no immediately clear reason.

Again, to be clear, I'm not holding unified task resolution up as something that is well suited to simulation (whatever that means anymore), just as a more elegant and consistent alternative to pure fiat or multiple resolution systems in the same game. Which is what this thread is about.

 

[jaerdaph]

Yeah, this was pretty much genius.

I like that Lava Rules also works for magma. Or super-heated rock.

 

[jdrakeh]

Everyone has the same XP table, regardless of class or race. Finally.

This, too. As I mention in the thread that this was forked from, the different XP tables bugged me for years. I understand why they were there, but they failed to achieve their intended purpose (i.e., mechanical balance) and only added more complications to the game. I was happy to see them go in 3e.

 

[RefinedBean]

I've only played (mainly) 3.0, 3.5, and 4E, but I really like 4E's inclusion of Epic-level gameplay as part of the base game, and not thrown into a supplement later on. Makes sure the game handles everyone's needs, as far as level goes.

And it's another step in the direction of having level-less D&D, god willin'.

 

[lutecius]

2e priest spheres and to a lesser degree wizard schools were an elegant system but needed a little tweaking (and balancing, like most thing pre-3e really). I think there was an article in Dragon that got the spheres just right.

3e streamlined a lot of things and brought many elegant rules. I particularly like:
- unified experience table and flexible multiclassing.
- balanced races (no more class restrictions and level limits)
- spontaneous casters (Vancian is the most inelegant magic system I know of and what made me drop d&d at some point. 3e brought me back)
I like the sorcerer but find psionics more elegant (the system, not the fluff)

As for attack rolls, I think 1e (attack tables) < 2e (thac0) < 3e (bab vs positive ac) < 4e (unified attack bonuses & defenses)
I also find 4e tiers more elegant than the 3e prestige classe mess. But these improvements are no match for my hatred of vancian fighting and the ubiquitous nonsensical effects.

1e - turning undead. It's been done many times since, but never as neatly and simply as the roll-d20-vs.-a-table system in 1e.

Actually, I consider this to be a prime example for an inelegant rule. Looking up tables is something I absolutely dislike in a pen&paper rpg. If there's no way to easily memorize a rule, the rule isn't elegant.

It may be simple and/or fast (if you happen to know where the table is located or have it handy) but elegant it isn't.

Agreed. I don't like keeping track of modifiers either but the math should be simple enough not to require a table.

I also like the 2 ability score for every defence thing in 4E, and think it should be taken further so no ability score is better than another...i.e. best of 2 scores for HP, initiative, melee and ranged basic attacks, even for carrying capacity. Yes it really stretches verisimilitude (and I dunno which 2 to use for each) but it would be very 'elegant' IMO and stop imbalance.

I don't know. That would probably be balanced but would also make ability scores abstract to the point of not meaning much "in game" (and imo 4e comes dangerously close.) Why have them at all then? That's redundant ie not elegant.

If you fall into lava you die. No save.

That's pragmatic, not elegant.

 

[LostSoul]

Wandering monsters.

In 4E, attacks vs. defenses. Very handy.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, I consider this to be a prime example for an inelegant rule. Looking up tables is something I absolutely dislike in a pen&paper rpg. If there's no way to easily memorize a rule, the rule isn't elegant.

It may be simple and/or fast (if you happen to know where the table is located or have it handy) but elegant it isn't.

It's a simple little table that you can easily nail to the back of your DM screen. Usually, I've looked up what the PC needs to beat before the d20 has stopped rolling.

Tables, I hate to say, *are* elegant...provided they're small and well laid out. The turn-undead table I use (much-modified from the 1e DMG) is 14 rows x 16 columns, typed out and trivially easy to check. The original one in the DMG is about half that size.

I'd rather have all that information (and all that variability) on paper rather than in my head; it leaves my limited-capacity brain free for remembering important things like story details, opponent information, and so on - much of which I often don't have written down; meaning that if I forget it, I'm in trouble!

That said, all elegance is completely lost if said tables are buried in a book. MSWord, a printer, a DM screen, and scotch tape are My Friends.

And to whoever said they were glad to see System Shock and Resurrection % rolls go, how would you replace them and still keep the granularity of a 100-point system rather than a 20-point? Or were you saying you didn't like the risk factor being there at all?

Lanefan