I like games that are simple and interesting. Too simple isn't interesting (I.e. the coin flip) so you need to trade some simple to make things more interesting. The key is finding the right balance of simple and interesting. The tipping point between simple and interesting could be different for each phase of the game.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E L&L for November 24th
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
I think that most players like maximal control over their own characters, and most players like for their character to feel different from everyone else's. A Save mechanic (as opposed to an Attack vs. different defenses mechanic) elegantly satisfies both needs…control over your own fate (you get to roll your own save against spells and spell-like effects directed towards you), and caster mechanics are clearly different from melee or ranged weapon mechanics. Cover protects you against arrows, but not sacred flame…you can fire an arrow into the darkness, but many spells require a visible target. As a DM, I like it when the players get to roll on their opponent's turn as well as their own.
Mercurius
Legend
I for one like sacred cows do 1-20 ability scores. An "18 DEX" is a lot sexier than a "+4 DEX." Its more D&Dish (not that D&D is "sexy").
Now an 18/57 STR is a bit silly, or those charts in 1e where you have all of these various percentages for each ability store. Certainly an AD&D sacred cow, but its an example of going too far towards silliness.
The 1-20 ability score range is an abstraction with a ton of symbolic meaning. Every D&D player knows that a "10 STR" is OK, 12 pretty good, 15 very good, and 18 great. 0, +1, +2, and +4 aren't as "meaning-rich."
Now an 18/57 STR is a bit silly, or those charts in 1e where you have all of these various percentages for each ability store. Certainly an AD&D sacred cow, but its an example of going too far towards silliness.
The 1-20 ability score range is an abstraction with a ton of symbolic meaning. Every D&D player knows that a "10 STR" is OK, 12 pretty good, 15 very good, and 18 great. 0, +1, +2, and +4 aren't as "meaning-rich."
Pre3rd edition used different mods. At one time I throught a good fix would be making certain classes have higher mods for scores. A fighter or 1/2 orc would get +8 from 18 STR. INT 18 is +8 for a wizard or high elf. Then proficiency bonuses would be unneccesary.
Another option would be something Mearls said in an online intervew long ago. Basically a fighter gets a bonus to all Str attacks, checks, and saves. Therefore the althletic skill, strengh saves, and grapple mods would be handled by the adjusted modifier.
Sage Genesis
First Post
This argument only works when you consider the saving throw from the perspective of a player. From a DM/NPC/monster perspective it doesn't really work anymore. The notion that players like maximal control over their characters is an argument in favor of a "players roll all the dice" design, not a "victim of spells roll all the dice" design.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Elegance is not Me Gusta. If we do that, we remove differentiation in games. We definitely remove articulate conversation about them. Simplicity is fewer; fewer mechanics, components, interaction, or game states. Complexity is when you have many of these things. Elegance comes when a game has a few simple mechanics and components and a lot of game states and high interactivity.
This is gender-biased, but there is an old saying, "When leaving the house take one thing off if you're a woman, add one thing on if you're a man.
As stated above, elegance in game design is just like science or math. (Game design is a sub-discipline of mathematics after all.) The article well covers the reasons we should remove unnecessary game elements. But what about adding material when the game is not to your taste?
When adding something it should set off the rest of the work. It shouldn't be the focal point of the game unless you want it to truly become the center of game play and essentially change the game. IMO, a last addition should be dynamic, not static. In other words, the game mechanic should have a high level of interaction with the existing mechanics and game states throughout the game. It should be dynamic. Most mechanics should affect others to truly increase game difficulty, variety, play complexity, and ultimately satisfaction, but a subtle addition can be optional and yet significantly shift the weight of game strategies to your play style.
This is gender-biased, but there is an old saying, "When leaving the house take one thing off if you're a woman, add one thing on if you're a man.
As stated above, elegance in game design is just like science or math. (Game design is a sub-discipline of mathematics after all.) The article well covers the reasons we should remove unnecessary game elements. But what about adding material when the game is not to your taste?
When adding something it should set off the rest of the work. It shouldn't be the focal point of the game unless you want it to truly become the center of game play and essentially change the game. IMO, a last addition should be dynamic, not static. In other words, the game mechanic should have a high level of interaction with the existing mechanics and game states throughout the game. It should be dynamic. Most mechanics should affect others to truly increase game difficulty, variety, play complexity, and ultimately satisfaction, but a subtle addition can be optional and yet significantly shift the weight of game strategies to your play style.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
True, but there are a few things to keep in mind. First, people get proficiency bonuses to certain saving throws now. Their odds of resisting are much higher for those saves. Also, spells aren't nearly as deadly as they used to be. There is a notable lack of save-or-die spells in Next, and most debilitating effects let the defender save again on each round to break free of the effect. It's not like 3e and before where one failed save would often mean you lose.
[Edit] To be honest, I would prefer that they just get rid of the proficiency bonus on saving throws and save DCs entirely. Then everyone would be on even footing, based on their respective ability scores, and there wouldn't be this whole arms race with escalating DCs vs save bonuses. Spellcasters have a wide enough variety of spells that they can target pretty much any save they want, so having proficiency in one or two out of the six abilities isn't very helpful. It just creates an increasingly widening gap between one's good and poor saves for casters to exploit. And I say this as someone who loves playing casters.
I agree with you here. The tiny +5 (at most) modifier you can get from your abilities has a very small impact compared to the d20, making the game very swingy. Even with the attributes of an Olympic athlete, one can easily fail at routine tasks in this system. It's a problem I've been bringing up since the playtest's beginnings. The +6 (maximum) from skills helps, but not nearly enough. This is why they had to do the Band-Aid fix of giving rogues an additional +5, because nobody likes failing so very often at things that rogues should be good at. Unfortunately, that only helps rogues. Everyone else is out of luck. Hopefully, they'll take a serious look at the math now that the public playtest is over and fix it before the game is released. Why they didn't work this out from the very beginning, I don't know.
They did adjust. They didn't just delete saving throws, the made them part of abilities. That's an adjustment.
Last edited:
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
Full disclosure: when Wizards announced the D&D Next playtest, I'd had enough. Why buy a new series of expensive books, when I could just design my own?
"Saving throws are obviously important to the game—but was the manner in which they had been previously implemented adding too much detail and complexity to the game?"
Yes. I eliminated saving throws by turning them into skills with alternative uses, and since each skill is based on an ability score, a saving throw could boil down to a simple ability check.
"In past editions, we've used tables big and small to capture all the +1 or –2 modifiers that can creep into the game. Advantage (along with its sinister twin, disadvantage) is easy to remember, simple to apply before or after a roll, and comprehensive enough to devour huge swaths of fiddly modifiers."
I've rolled all the little modifiers into the Difficulty chart. Say you're riding a horse, down a steep slope, through blinding rain, and through a cursed area. What's your attack modifier? The GM decides that, for the average person, this attack is Challenging. Challenging corresponds to a -4 penalty, so that's what the PC adds to his attack roll.
@howandwhy99 : there's a fine line between elegance and simplicity. My take was that an "elegant" game is one that is free of problems, even if those problems are things that work, but players don't like. I definitely encountered this designing my own game: it's so simple that it lacks personality. In my case, though, that's the intent; I want to be able to add rules to make it a different game as necessary.
"Saving throws are obviously important to the game—but was the manner in which they had been previously implemented adding too much detail and complexity to the game?"
Yes. I eliminated saving throws by turning them into skills with alternative uses, and since each skill is based on an ability score, a saving throw could boil down to a simple ability check.
"In past editions, we've used tables big and small to capture all the +1 or –2 modifiers that can creep into the game. Advantage (along with its sinister twin, disadvantage) is easy to remember, simple to apply before or after a roll, and comprehensive enough to devour huge swaths of fiddly modifiers."
I've rolled all the little modifiers into the Difficulty chart. Say you're riding a horse, down a steep slope, through blinding rain, and through a cursed area. What's your attack modifier? The GM decides that, for the average person, this attack is Challenging. Challenging corresponds to a -4 penalty, so that's what the PC adds to his attack roll.
@howandwhy99 : there's a fine line between elegance and simplicity. My take was that an "elegant" game is one that is free of problems, even if those problems are things that work, but players don't like. I definitely encountered this designing my own game: it's so simple that it lacks personality. In my case, though, that's the intent; I want to be able to add rules to make it a different game as necessary.
Last edited:
No, they didn't.
They Removed Fortitude, Reflex, and Will and made you roll ability checks vs Spell DCs. But did not adjust the spell DCs.
So for almost 2 years, PCs and NPCs all practically autofailed all their saving throws. And playtester complained about it for months. My players started saying "Why bother" when I acts for Dex saves. Eventually they realize that a value had to added to saving throws and the DCs needed to shrink.
At the same time, they made saving throws mostly use DEX, CON, and WIS anyway. STR, INT, and CHA saves are rare.
The deletion of FRW from the sheets did make the game easier to use. But the desire for a simple game and personal preferences got in the way of elegance. It's been plaguing the playtest since it was opened.
Similar Threads
