Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8111736" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I don't think you are WRONG by any means, but I DO think there are definite benefits to certain kinds of 'elegance'. For one thing, I believe there is a 'complexity budget' that games are going to need to meet. Now, D&D MAY BE DIFFERENT! As the original and archetypal RPG its weird quirky rules systems and vast quantities of material and background are kind of part and parcel of the game. If anyone is going to play TT RPG they are vastly likely to simply land with D&D and it will be THE option. Relatively few people go on to any other game, and even if you don't master D&D, you can play along with the geeks in your group (and there surely will be some in most groups).</p><p>HOWEVER, for other games, such as if I am a game designer making an RPG, this is NOT true. Players are limited, they have limited amounts of time and energy to master rules, and generally demand high "bang for the buck" in such rules. Now, I think 'content is king', so it is likely that the effect of 'good rules' is uneven, as a game with really elegant rules, crummy presentation, and an uninteresting or badly presented content (IE setting, premise, etc.) will undoubtedly fail with most people. OTOH, all other things being relatively equal, a great set of rules, cleverly deployed, can provide a game with a distinct edge. Of course the two need to support each other as well, if your rules don't synergize with the premise and advance the desired game play experience, then things won't work.</p><p>All of that being given there are a few things that good, simple, elegant rules systems can do for you. The first is that they can provide a UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE. That is, in a game system like old school classic D&D, like say AD&D 1e, there is a big problem. Every single thing that may come up in the game is represented by some completely different subsystem, which uses different kinds of dice, etc. Nothing can be compared to or integrated with, anything else. There needs to be a rule for every specific thing, like "what happens to my initiative if I'm injured?", or even "what is the benefit to initiative of a high DEX?". This quickly increases complexity and creates both a burden on the GM and uncertainty in the mind of the player as to how the fictional world actually maps onto the resolution system (and thus uncertainty about what their abilities mean).</p><p>D20 was a huge advance in the sense that it unified all of these things. Now I simply know that everything dealing with how quickly and accurately I can move and act is a check modified by DEX, and it is all done on a d20 against a target value, and there are a pretty small number of standardized target values (in 3e it was AC, or a conventional set of difficulties, 4e got even more precise about this, and 5e is equally precise most of the time). If some completely novel situation comes up, the GM and player already have agreement on how it is handled, and the player can evaluate his options with some confidence that the GM won't suddenly require an unmodified d8 roll needing an 8 for success, or something like that.</p><p>Likewise the benefit in complexity budget should be clear. If a player need only learn one core system, then they are ready to play almost right off the bat. Their investment in mastering rules is much reduced, and you're vastly more likely to get people into the game than if it takes 100 hours just to fully understand how combat works. There are going to be a few people who find such simplicity offputting, but in this day and age when people have vast amounts of calls on their time, it is almost surely a winner.</p><p>Another advantage is in terms of presentation. While the details of presentation are closely related to the 'content' side of the equation, they are certainly made more tractable if you don't have to present a vast number of different elements simply to cover all the rules system bases (or else simply leave most of it to the GM to slog through). This is the nature of the vaunted GM friendliness of 4e. It is a real thing too, even its fairly simple stat blocks give you a monster that can interact with every rule in the system, as needed. </p><p>And this parsimony lets you put the real complexity where it can do its best work. You can elaborate a subsystem, or build 'side systems' that are mainly useful in building up the milieu or presentation. So, a really good example is Traveler, where the core system is extremely simple. There are a wide array of 'side systems' which build on that core without cluttering it up. The GM has entire systems for patrons, starship operations, law, culture, society, planetary conditions, wildlife, etc. etc. etc. None of these impacts the basic skill resolution system at all. The only one the players normally even see is the character generation system, which normally happens offline and is itself pretty straightforward (though it is perhaps one of the more complicated and often elaborated subsystems of the game).</p><p>Traveler, in contrast to D&D, has survived virtually unchanged since the 1970s. Material produced for the earliest editions of the game meshes perfectly well today with 'Mongoose Traveler' and also with 'T5' (Marc's own most recent version). There were a couple of aborted diversions into variant rules systems, but none of them could really compete with the raw simplicity and elegance of the original. </p><p>BRP (the core system of CoC as well as Runequest and a few other games) can be cited as another example. It is an extremely simple system which has remained pretty much unchanged in its core mechanical structure since it first appeared in the 1970s, although a number of quite different games have been built on that base. </p><p></p><p>My advice to game designers today would be to make every attempt to emulate these games of the past, and eschew the complexity and lack of orthogonal rule structures which tends to exist in D&D. D&D is successful and I'm not arguing we should change it, just that it is kind of a special case. You will almost never be in a position, designing a game, where that game is even likely to be played as much as D&D by the people using it! At best its greatest supporters and advocates might do so, but their players probably took a break from a 5e campaign to play, and aren't likely to have the time and energy to absorb 12 different heterogeneous subsystems. You are doing yourself a service by sticking closely to one or two constructs and building around them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8111736, member: 82106"] I don't think you are WRONG by any means, but I DO think there are definite benefits to certain kinds of 'elegance'. For one thing, I believe there is a 'complexity budget' that games are going to need to meet. Now, D&D MAY BE DIFFERENT! As the original and archetypal RPG its weird quirky rules systems and vast quantities of material and background are kind of part and parcel of the game. If anyone is going to play TT RPG they are vastly likely to simply land with D&D and it will be THE option. Relatively few people go on to any other game, and even if you don't master D&D, you can play along with the geeks in your group (and there surely will be some in most groups). HOWEVER, for other games, such as if I am a game designer making an RPG, this is NOT true. Players are limited, they have limited amounts of time and energy to master rules, and generally demand high "bang for the buck" in such rules. Now, I think 'content is king', so it is likely that the effect of 'good rules' is uneven, as a game with really elegant rules, crummy presentation, and an uninteresting or badly presented content (IE setting, premise, etc.) will undoubtedly fail with most people. OTOH, all other things being relatively equal, a great set of rules, cleverly deployed, can provide a game with a distinct edge. Of course the two need to support each other as well, if your rules don't synergize with the premise and advance the desired game play experience, then things won't work. All of that being given there are a few things that good, simple, elegant rules systems can do for you. The first is that they can provide a UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE. That is, in a game system like old school classic D&D, like say AD&D 1e, there is a big problem. Every single thing that may come up in the game is represented by some completely different subsystem, which uses different kinds of dice, etc. Nothing can be compared to or integrated with, anything else. There needs to be a rule for every specific thing, like "what happens to my initiative if I'm injured?", or even "what is the benefit to initiative of a high DEX?". This quickly increases complexity and creates both a burden on the GM and uncertainty in the mind of the player as to how the fictional world actually maps onto the resolution system (and thus uncertainty about what their abilities mean). D20 was a huge advance in the sense that it unified all of these things. Now I simply know that everything dealing with how quickly and accurately I can move and act is a check modified by DEX, and it is all done on a d20 against a target value, and there are a pretty small number of standardized target values (in 3e it was AC, or a conventional set of difficulties, 4e got even more precise about this, and 5e is equally precise most of the time). If some completely novel situation comes up, the GM and player already have agreement on how it is handled, and the player can evaluate his options with some confidence that the GM won't suddenly require an unmodified d8 roll needing an 8 for success, or something like that. Likewise the benefit in complexity budget should be clear. If a player need only learn one core system, then they are ready to play almost right off the bat. Their investment in mastering rules is much reduced, and you're vastly more likely to get people into the game than if it takes 100 hours just to fully understand how combat works. There are going to be a few people who find such simplicity offputting, but in this day and age when people have vast amounts of calls on their time, it is almost surely a winner. Another advantage is in terms of presentation. While the details of presentation are closely related to the 'content' side of the equation, they are certainly made more tractable if you don't have to present a vast number of different elements simply to cover all the rules system bases (or else simply leave most of it to the GM to slog through). This is the nature of the vaunted GM friendliness of 4e. It is a real thing too, even its fairly simple stat blocks give you a monster that can interact with every rule in the system, as needed. And this parsimony lets you put the real complexity where it can do its best work. You can elaborate a subsystem, or build 'side systems' that are mainly useful in building up the milieu or presentation. So, a really good example is Traveler, where the core system is extremely simple. There are a wide array of 'side systems' which build on that core without cluttering it up. The GM has entire systems for patrons, starship operations, law, culture, society, planetary conditions, wildlife, etc. etc. etc. None of these impacts the basic skill resolution system at all. The only one the players normally even see is the character generation system, which normally happens offline and is itself pretty straightforward (though it is perhaps one of the more complicated and often elaborated subsystems of the game). Traveler, in contrast to D&D, has survived virtually unchanged since the 1970s. Material produced for the earliest editions of the game meshes perfectly well today with 'Mongoose Traveler' and also with 'T5' (Marc's own most recent version). There were a couple of aborted diversions into variant rules systems, but none of them could really compete with the raw simplicity and elegance of the original. BRP (the core system of CoC as well as Runequest and a few other games) can be cited as another example. It is an extremely simple system which has remained pretty much unchanged in its core mechanical structure since it first appeared in the 1970s, although a number of quite different games have been built on that base. My advice to game designers today would be to make every attempt to emulate these games of the past, and eschew the complexity and lack of orthogonal rule structures which tends to exist in D&D. D&D is successful and I'm not arguing we should change it, just that it is kind of a special case. You will almost never be in a position, designing a game, where that game is even likely to be played as much as D&D by the people using it! At best its greatest supporters and advocates might do so, but their players probably took a break from a 5e campaign to play, and aren't likely to have the time and energy to absorb 12 different heterogeneous subsystems. You are doing yourself a service by sticking closely to one or two constructs and building around them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top