Game design that I'm surprised didn't make it into more books

[jmucchiello]

I think people are assuming that my original shot was that d20 is bad or something because it's complex and complex games take forever to prep for. I highlighted Spycraft 2.0 as an example of what a good game design could look like for several reasons
1. it's a d20 game
2. it's a complex game with lots of options (feats, Prcs, gear, etc, etc) for players and DMs alike. Plus there are new books that have been released and that are going to be released that offer more options.
3. despite the complexity of Spycraft 2.0 it has a system built in that allows for very fast prep time. As mentioned above I can stat out NPCs, security systems, organizations, etc in about am hour's time regardless of of the level of the adventure. The NPC design system is so elegant that once I've stated out a NPC (say for a 4th level adventure) I don't have to do any more work on him if he returns later in the campaign (say at 8th level).

4. It does not have 300+ core spells spread across 7 core magic using classes that when you have 15th level foes you have to pick out 50+ spells for that one character. And that's just core spells/spellcasters.
5. Balance is not dependent on a required point-buy system disguised as a system for magic items. Magic items are even more varied than spells and make high level NPCs even more tedious to create.

If you remember when 3.0 was announced the devs were all excited about system mastery. They made the system "hard" so that you could accomplish something by mastering its complexity. This is the design decision that is the source of your "flaw". If system mastery is not something you want to accomplish, then D&D is simply not designed for you. The fact that you find it hard to find players of other games is really not WotCs problem. The OGL/d20 logo were designed to suck the industry into their parlor to exapnd D&D's dominance through the network effect. It succeeded. Even if you leave D&D, the network effect presumes that you will return someday. This combines to form a marketting strategy that was highly successful. So while you see a flaw, WotC sees money. And that, usually, is the bottom line in business. Your inconvenience is ... regretful.

System mastery is no longer given any lip service by the devs and that's why (as many said above) MMIV contains more stated creatures, why the delve format (is that the name) has come along (making adventures as read once and run as possible), and why classes like the warlock have been experimented with. I doubt the game will ever simplify to the level you'd like though. Not even in the inevitable 4th edition.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think we need to accept that most games are not designed to be played so much as they're designed for a kind of meta-game comprising reading the book, thinking about how the rules might play out, designing new things using the rules, etc.

QFT.

I'm glad to have found that Savage Worlds is not the only exception to this, however. Not that I'm familiar with that system anyway, so I can't vouch for it.

 

[charlesatan]

Um I don't know SW Saga too well but how does this format help we stat up Galadriel any faster than the D20 SRD?

You ditch the magic items, you ditch the spells, and you ditch skill points (just pick X number of skills and that's it). Saves also are simplified (equal to your level, plus some other bonuses, no more complex save computations for multiclassing). Basically what you're left is picking your feats (lots of 'em) and your special abilities.

 

[charlesatan]

I think people are assuming that my original shot was that d20 is bad or something because it's complex and complex games take forever to prep for. I highlighted Spycraft 2.0 as an example of what a good game design could look like for several reasons
1. it's a d20 game
2. it's a complex game with lots of options (feats, Prcs, gear, etc, etc) for players and DMs alike. Plus there are new books that have been released and that are going to be released that offer more options.
3. despite the complexity of Spycraft 2.0 it has a system built in that allows for very fast prep time. As mentioned above I can stat out NPCs, security systems, organizations, etc in about am hour's time regardless of of the level of the adventure. The NPC design system is so elegant that once I've stated out a NPC (say for a 4th level adventure) I don't have to do any more work on him if he returns later in the campaign (say at 8th level).

Conclusion: It's a myth that complex games take a long time to prep for. It's also a myth that you need to a rules lite games to have fast prep times. Spycraft 2.0 (and to a lesser extent Iron Heroes) has proved this fact.

So, since in this case you CAN have your cake and eat it too, why havn't more game designers taken this stance?

Because for some, it's a feature, not a flaw. =)

But honestly, while I think you can make a complex game yet giving it low prep time, there's definitely more flexibility in a game that has longer prep time (if done correctly--bad game design can still lead to long prep time games yet still a sucky, inflexible system). I mean I told a friend about how skills are computed in Saga system and he prefers skill points more simply because it's more customizable, even if the former will take less time.

Second, it also has to do with audience. I mean the Saga Rules for Star Wars is fine and I expect some gamers will be adapting it to their D&D games. But I don't think the brand will adapt that system as a whole (i.e. 4th Ed being Saga System) and some people might not even embrace such a move.

Third, #1, #2, and #3 is easier said than done.

Fourth, it's also no coincidence that the later game d20 game systems came out better than 3.0. The first "prototype" system is usually flawed (think the bugs in Windows XP when it first came out, or in Windows Vista right now). A lot of game systems right now like Star Wars Saga System wouldn't be possible if they hadn't made the mistakes in 3.0 for example.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

I think people are assuming that my original shot was that d20 is bad or something because it's complex and complex games take forever to prep for. I highlighted Spycraft 2.0 as an example of what a good game design could look like for several reasons
1. it's a d20 game
2. it's a complex game with lots of options (feats, Prcs, gear, etc, etc) for players and DMs alike. Plus there are new books that have been released and that are going to be released that offer more options.
3. despite the complexity of Spycraft 2.0 it has a system built in that allows for very fast prep time. As mentioned above I can stat out NPCs, security systems, organizations, etc in about am hour's time regardless of of the level of the adventure. The NPC design system is so elegant that once I've stated out a NPC (say for a 4th level adventure) I don't have to do any more work on him if he returns later in the campaign (say at 8th level).

4. It does not have 300+ core spells spread across 7 core magic using classes that when you have 15th level foes you have to pick out 50+ spells for that one character. And that's just core spells/spellcasters.
5. Balance is not dependent on a required point-buy system disguised as a system for magic items. Magic items are even more varied than spells and make high level NPCs even more tedious to create.

The core rules do have a basic system for statting out high level NPCs. There are standard NPCs at various class levels in the DMG. They're quite simple to switch out stats and feats to create the NPC you're looking for. Tag on a different personality, switch out the weapon, and for most NPCs you're done.

Monster with class levels? Change the ability score modifiers and you're done.

Spells are more awkward, but I find it helpful to do a job once and then keep the results. next time you stat up a wizard, give him a theme: Pyromancer, Transmuter, Necromancer. Save the spell list away. Only choose roughly the same number of spells as that wizard could cast per day anyway. Then, every time you create a new wizard you can copy and paste your spell template in, change a few spells (a la the weapon above) and you're good to go.

Requires some up front work to build up a portfolio, but allows for simple villains in about 10 - 15 minutes.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

In the discussion of rules-heavy/high prep-time vs. rules-light/low prep-time, one thing I sometimes find frustrating is the attitude of people who exclusively play as "players" (instead of switching from player to DM, or DM to player). The attitude is basically one of: I won't play anything that doesn't give me a vast amount of crunch to customize my character (spells, items, feats, skills, etc). The more the better. And I really don't care if this makes it a chore for you (the DM) to run the game, I really don't care because I never DM anyway.

I don't mean to be negative, but I know some players who are like this. They will never play with a rules-light system (Castles & Crusades, Savage Worlds, etc) if they believe it reduces the amount of customization and/or crunch. They also never/rarely DM, hardly a coincidence.

 

[Clavis]

Your comments seem equally applicable to older editions of D&D, so why are you on this forum?

Because D&D is synonymous with RPG in most people's minds, the fight is always going to be over what shape D&D takes. I'm not opposed to the whole d20 idea at all; I think its good to have a single base mechanic. I think the ways its been implemented in the current edition of the game are terrible, however. I'm on this board to voice that opinion, in the hope that someone with the power to do something about it hears. Obviously from the original post I am far from alone in my concern that the game has become nearly impossible for DM's to prep for adequately without pre-purchased adventures.

Older editions of D&D were a mess, but they were the kind of messes that could be fixed. They were modular, by virtue of not being too tightly designed. I've been playing for 23 years, so this is not an theoretical statement on my part. 3.5 Ed is like an ugly Jenga tower that you don't dare remove anything from, because you never know what is necessary and what isn't.

 

[The_Gneech]

Or, alternately, different people enjoy different things. Some folks love HERO, with its extreme level of detail.

Thing is, HERO prep time (particularly for fantasy) is usually pretty quick because unlike d20, it's all a la carte. You want a wizard to have fireball? Bam, he has fireball, you don't have to make him a minimum of 5th level, figure out his stat increases, additional feats, and skill points.

It is true that you have to build the fireball "power" the first time you encounter it, which adds a bit of time. However, once it's built you can just give it to anybody you want to have it.

Anyway, to avoid derailing the thread, I think the OP is on to something. The reason I switched to D&D when 3.0 came out was to take advantage of all the pre-written adventures to minimize prep time. However, I discovered over time that I wasn't really saving any time, because everything I found, I ended up wanting to heavily customize anyway ... at which point the spiderweb nature of D&D monster/class adjustment pounded on me. E-Tools was a godsend in this regard, but that hit a wall when WotC yoinked the license and is prohibitively difficult to add certain types of new content to.

I am going to give the Saga Edition a try myself, because it does seem to be much simpler while still being flexible. Once that decision was made, it enabled me to chuck a lot of baggage inherent in D&D that had been bugging me for some time anyway. I'll still be customizing and converting, but the mechanics will be a lot simpler and I'll be able to concentrate more on making a cool setting and interesting NPCs -- without having to try to teach unwilling players a new system.

-The Gneech

 

[wedgeski]

I've never read Spycraft 2.0. Considering I'm not that fond of modern games, I probably never will. Can someone who knows the system well opine on the feasibility of someone constructing a similar NPC generation system for D&D, based on the Spycraft system? Or is Spycraft built from the ground up to allow for such a system?

To quote from Psion's original review:

Spycraft 2.0 has an all new approach to NPCs. Though you can, for some special characters, use the PC design rules, most NPCs are created using a the new NPC design rules herein. Under these rules, an NPC need not have classes, levels, skills, ability scores/attributesor most other trappings normal to d20 System characters.

Under this system, each NPC is simply assigned a roman numeral for initiative, attack, defense, resilience, damage save bonus or vitality and wounds (standard have the former, special have the latter), and competance, and may optionally have special qualities, skills, exceptional attributes, or wealth. These roman numerals are not used directly in the game.

Instead, the GC decides how much of a challenge the NPCs are supposed to be and assign them a threat level (approximately equivalent to CR or EL in meaning). The roman numeral is combined with a threat level to get a raw modifier in each category. The categories are very general and net in most rolls you would need to have to run an NPC. The GC is free to give NPCs whatever roman numerals and special qualities desired; better NPCs will translate into a higher reward for the PCs.

These concepts translate very easily to d20: threat level = encounter level, special qualities = feats, higher reward = higher CR. I was going to convert them myself but managed to get hold of Heap's excellent work instead. If he ever gets around to publishing it (it's months and months behind the proposed schedule now), he's got a guaranteedsale with me at least.

 

[rgard]

I'm not sure exactly what shortcuts you're talking about. But if such shortcuts exist, why not formalize them in the core rules? I think that's really the OP's original point.

You'd have to read the previous posts to find the short cuts. These are non-core rulebook short cuts in that they are PCs and NPCs from other sources you can drop into your campaign.

The DMG does give ready-made NPC stats on pages 110 to 128. There's a 30,000 foot view of the various classes, levels 1-20 and a more detailed view of characters of each class at various levels.

Thanks,
Rich