Exception-Based Design?

[Retreater]

What does 'too many things' have to do with exception-based design? They seem like unrelated things to me. D&D has always a ton of powers and whatnot. 4e tends to give them to every class but even old school editions have them.

Perhaps I'm using the terminology incorrectly.
My concern is that it's not just one special ability that needs a full paragraph description of very precise language. It's four ... or more (at 1st level). It's having nearly everything your character can do be a different bonus (or penalty), targeting a different defense, with a variety of different effects that can happen 1) partially on a miss; 2) dependent on a saving throw of the enemy; 3) differently based on the type of weapon used; or any other of a variety of factors.
The player with such a character may...
1) ignore these abilities to the ruin of the character and his team
2) print them out on cards or character sheet addendums (6 pages or more)
3) track the abilities on a phone or tablet
4) stop to look up the abilities every round in a 300+ page rulebook - or perhaps across multiple books depending on splatbook integration
5) constantly have their hand held by the GM who tries to remember all this information for 4-5 players

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps I'm using the terminology incorrectly.
My concern is that it's not just one special ability that needs a full paragraph description of very precise language. It's four ... or more (at 1st level). It's having nearly everything your character can do be a different bonus (or penalty), targeting a different defense, with a variety of different effects that can happen 1) partially on a miss; 2) dependent on a saving throw of the enemy; 3) differently based on the type of weapon used; or any other of a variety of factors.
The player with such a character may...
1) ignore these abilities to the ruin of the character and his team
2) print them out on cards or character sheet addendums (6 pages or more)
3) track the abilities on a phone or tablet
4) stop to look up the abilities every round in a 300+ page rulebook - or perhaps across multiple books depending on splatbook integration
5) constantly have their hand held by the GM who tries to remember all this information for 4-5 players

I'd call it complexity, but I will also agree that a common core set of rules which covers all situations, extended with bits that alter those core rules based on whatever is exception based design, and 4e is certainly such a game, to a high degree. It's a technique which really lends itself to complexity. The epitome of this design style of course, and one of the first clear examples is the board game Cosmic Encounters. It's also a pretty simple game!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Irrespective of naming, exception-based design does have the advantage that it provides a means of mechanical character customisation (especially, if we understand it more broadly as anything that modifies or adds to the base rules). And I think that's something that appeals to many people.

Effect based design is perfectly capable of doing that. It just requires assembling the tinker-toys. Its usually not something you can just grab something off a list and move on (though sometimes such systems will also have books of pre-assembled constructs for those who can't be bothered).

 

[Thomas Shey]

What does 'too many things' have to do with exception-based design? They seem like unrelated things to me. D&D has always a ton of powers and whatnot. 4e tends to give them to every class but even old school editions have them.

It has. But the issue with exception based design is that as that number increases, since there's no common metric, you just flat out have to keep track of them separately. And of course that means that either you have a practical limit as to how many one character can have access to, or the load can get prohibitive.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

The key problem with exception based design is that players must be familiar with all the rules there's an exception to. The simpler the system, the easier this is to achieve, but the fewer exceptions which can be made, which often leads to adding additional rules to compensate, which creates even more rules to make exceptions to.

It should be absolutely zero for you to deal with. These are basic character abilities. If your players aren't 100% handling these then it's no wonder you have problems. That is a serious red flag. You should never have to think about these in the slightest, just allow when the player interrupts.

If this is even the slightest bit of brain power, then your player are doing it wrong unless they are newbies. In which case you don't get to complain because that's something you knew starting the campaign.

Or perhaps the system is designed beyond typical human limits. At the very least if players are consistently doing this then it isn't the game for them.

What does 'too many things' have to do with exception-based design?

Every element you add increases the possible exceptions exponentially.

Perhaps I'm using the terminology incorrectly.
My concern is that it's not just one special ability that needs a full paragraph description of very precise language. It's four ... or more (at 1st level). It's having nearly everything your character can do be a different bonus (or penalty), targeting a different defense, with a variety of different effects that can happen 1) partially on a miss; 2) dependent on a saving throw of the enemy; 3) differently based on the type of weapon used; or any other of a variety of factors.
The player with such a character may...
1) ignore these abilities to the ruin of the character and his team
2) print them out on cards or character sheet addendums (6 pages or more)
3) track the abilities on a phone or tablet
4) stop to look up the abilities every round in a 300+ page rulebook - or perhaps across multiple books depending on splatbook integration
5) constantly have their hand held by the GM who tries to remember all this information for 4-5 players

But are these considered a feature or a bug? Are these activities intended parts of play or a barrier to entry?

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Is everyone in here talking about different things using the same label?

I'd go further: there's a difference between games that have exceptions to the rules and ones that are conceptually designed to give PCs and NPCs different tools to actively deviate from the rules. That, to me, is exception-based design.

3e was designed with a complex set of rules. It had many variations and permutations but the rules were a relatively hermetic and self-contained system. To play the game effectively, you (theoretically) had to know all the rules to see how your specific character interacts with them. Again in theory, because you knew the rules, you should be able to predict how others interact with the same rules. As I see it, 3e was not an exception-based design despite the many exceptions here and there.

I am less familiar with 4e but from what I've seen, 4e was built with a relatively narrow set of rules as a base system, and every character had a set of powers, each an exception or derivation from the base rules. To play the game effectively, you (theoretically) had to know the base rules and your own powers to see how your specific character diverges from them. Again in theory, you should only have to know your own powers to play effectively, knowing that others may play by different rules than yours. As I see it, 4e was designed to play by the base rules and the exceptions pertaining to your own character, making it an exception-based system.

I think it should be completely the other way around.

In 3.0 and 3.5 and PF1 there are a few unified systems: Feats and spells.

Any character using anything else has to use a separate subsystem. There's the psionic system, there are rogue tricks (PF1), there are true namers, and more.

D&D 4E has a single system, AEDU, which is shared by all classes.

Yeah sure you could argue that every "power" in AEDU is an exception to some kind of hypothetical standard defined by the power system, but then you have to agree that every spell then also is an exception to that standard and I think that this leads to the conclusion then that everything that isn't shared between all classes is an exception of some kind...

 

[aramis erak]

I agree that D&D 4E, at least through PHB2, seems to be unified mechanic and 90% of abilities are just flavors on standard bits

Is everyone in here talking about different things using the same label?

I think it should be completely the other way around.

In 3.0 and 3.5 and PF1 there are a few unified systems: Feats and spells.

Each spell and each feat is an exception to the general rules of play. THOSE are every bit as much exceptions as class features are. It's just that they're available to more than one class.

That there's a unified means of getting them doesn't make them any less exception based design when each is a pile of exceptions. EG: A damage causing spell is an exception to needing a ranged weapon to attack at range.

Now, if all the feats used one of 3 mechanics: Either it gives advantage, swaps an attribute linkage, or adds to a numeric thing, then it wouldn't be exceptions to the mechanics at the same level.

To a great extent, any game that has anything other than just attributes and skills is usually exception based to some degree, even GURPS and Savage Worlds. Both have multiple advantages that do things otherwise not possible under the core mechanics. Both have magic/psionics/superpowers systems. (GURPS has different magic rules than Supers rules, and the Psi rules last I checked were the same as supers. Savage Worlds, the type of paranorm you are determines which powers you can get, and even then, some of those are simply granting exceptions to normal limits, or imposing non-stantard limits.

Fate tends to be mostly clear of exceptions...
everything boils down to narrate or skill roll, and how aspects affect those options.

2d20, especially in DUNE and STA, is at its heart unified design... but then nearly every talent is an exception to some rule or another.

1st ed BRP (which post-dates RQ) is purely skills and atts, no magic, no exception based elements... But Worlds of Wonder adds all the various exceptions for supers, high tech, and Magic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You can argue there's always some exceptions when basic design is created, but there's a big difference between those and games where every additional character property is built custom for the purpose. Even a generic system can do a fair amount of this, though usually less than something like D&D traditionally has done (note as mentioned above, GURPS tends to do plug-in systems fairly often; all its paranormal systems tend to be custom made). The closest thing to non-exception-based designs are some superhero games and a couple of generic systems (EABA is pretty close to pure here, but its also relatively obscure).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It has. But the issue with exception based design is that as that number increases, since there's no common metric, you just flat out have to keep track of them separately. And of course that means that either you have a practical limit as to how many one character can have access to, or the load can get prohibitive.

Well I am not sure what common metric we're talking about. With any system you can have 'too much stuff' problems. In terms of the consistency of effectiveness that too seems universal. In any system you want thematic coherence and characters that are reasonably close in 'plot power'. Personally I don't think that is related to exception based design particularly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that D&D 4E, at least through PHB2, seems to be unified mechanic and 90% of abilities are just flavors on standard bits

Each spell and each feat is an exception to the general rules of play. THOSE are every bit as much exceptions as class features are. It's just that they're available to more than one class.

That there's a unified means of getting them doesn't make them any less exception based design when each is a pile of exceptions. EG: A damage causing spell is an exception to needing a ranged weapon to attack at range.

Now, if all the feats used one of 3 mechanics: Either it gives advantage, swaps an attribute linkage, or adds to a numeric thing, then it wouldn't be exceptions to the mechanics at the same level.

To a great extent, any game that has anything other than just attributes and skills is usually exception based to some degree, even GURPS and Savage Worlds. Both have multiple advantages that do things otherwise not possible under the core mechanics. Both have magic/psionics/superpowers systems. (GURPS has different magic rules than Supers rules, and the Psi rules last I checked were the same as supers. Savage Worlds, the type of paranorm you are determines which powers you can get, and even then, some of those are simply granting exceptions to normal limits, or imposing non-stantard limits.

Fate tends to be mostly clear of exceptions...
everything boils down to narrate or skill roll, and how aspects affect those options.

2d20, especially in DUNE and STA, is at its heart unified design... but then nearly every talent is an exception to some rule or another.

1st ed BRP (which post-dates RQ) is purely skills and atts, no magic, no exception based elements... But Worlds of Wonder adds all the various exceptions for supers, high tech, and Magic.

In essence this seems so broad as to encompass the vast majority of RPG design, which may be your point. This is why I flagged the board game Cosmic Encounter, because it is probably the clearest example ever of a pure exception based design. Simple core rules, and everything unique about a given alien is simply a description of how it can break the rules. Later sets diluted that in a sense by adding additional subsystems, but in all cases every player gets to use all of them, they just provide added stuff to create exceptions in. This illustrates the complexity increase path for a system like that.