The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[Treebore]

Prime Evil,

According to your list and my interpretation of C&C, Castles and Crusades is the game! The only one people seem to have trouble with is the transparency. I think that is because the SIEGE engine is so simple and powerful people can't believe it has the power of adapatability that it does. So are unable to see how many "situations" the mechanic can resolve.

Oh well. At least my fellow Crusaders and myself have discovered something that works wonderfully for us and our groups.

 

[Gez]

Ouch, do you realize the massive amount of work that would require? For each and every creature, you would have to build it from the ground up. Essentially, each DM would be required to reinvent the wheel with each and every monster he used. Unless the new Monster Manual has twenty levels of every monster currently IN the monster manual.

No. Not "hippogriff" levels, but "magical beast" levels. And of course, not limited to twenty levels. The toughest creature in the MM now is CR 26.

Monster statblocks would still be monster statblocks.

 

[Plane Sailing]

No. Not "hippogriff" levels, but "magical beast" levels. And of course, not limited to twenty levels. The toughest creature in the MM now is CR 26.

Monster statblocks would still be monster statblocks.

IIRC True20 does this very kind of thing

 

[jmucchiello]

Yes, but now you are adding complexity back in. You have made exceptions to the rules. Since the goal is elegance, adding in exceptions is a bad thing isn't it?

Go back and read my Magic: The Gathering comments. MTG is almost 100% exceptions, yet the game is quite elegant because when you deal with an exception, it is a short, bite-sized morsel that does not require you to go consult three books for an explanation. Elegance is not the opposite of complexity.

My paper tiger is not an exception. It is an "ability" of the monster to suffer more damage than usual. So it can have a 16HD breath weapon, but be killed as if it only had 4 HD. But all the rules about the monster are local to the monster. You cannot say giving the monster an unusual ability is complexity (which is bad) because then you end up with all your monsters having the same set of abilities. Yes, you reduce complexity if all monsters are claw/claw/bite, fire-breathing, acid-immune dragons. And while you can make that elegant design, that doesn't make it good design. (Or fun either)

One of the "flaws" of standardization of abilities in 3.x is you have to know what the standard abilities do in order to see the keyword in the monster description and apply it correctly. The good thing about standardization is you only have one kind of incorporeality, not a dozen different kinds. The bad thing is you have to look up each keyword and understand how they work in order to run the monsters. Granted, over time you will come to know what they mean but that doesn't mean you always run them correctly. Incorporeality is like a half page of text. Do you really know how it works without refreshing your memory of it? I refer back to my 2e lightning bolt story now. I wonder how many 3.x DMs run some monster ability incorrectly without knowing because they think they know how it works but it they were to read it again, they'd discover they were wrong. (This paragraph has me planning to go read the special abilities section again....)

 

[Hussar]

One of the "flaws" of standardization of abilities in 3.x is you have to know what the standard abilities do in order to see the keyword in the monster description and apply it correctly. The good thing about standardization is you only have one kind of incorporeality, not a dozen different kinds. The bad thing is you have to look up each keyword and understand how they work in order to run the monsters. Granted, over time you will come to know what they mean but that doesn't mean you always run them correctly. Incorporeality is like a half page of text. Do you really know how it works without refreshing your memory of it? I refer back to my 2e lightning bolt story now. I wonder how many 3.x DMs run some monster ability incorrectly without knowing because they think they know how it works but it they were to read it again, they'd discover they were wrong. (This paragraph has me planning to go read the special abilities section again....)

Heh, quite probably. And, yes, when I know I'm going to use a funky creature in the near future, I brush up on the rules for it. Or, better yet, I cut and past the applicable rule and print it onto a file card.

But, that's switching things a little. Feats like magic cards, are bite sized rules changes. Yes, there are larger feats, but, by and large, a feat is six lines long. Applying a feat is not so much different than applying a Magic card. And, if memory is a problem, simply write it down.

To reverse it a little, if magic cards contained none of the text, only the title and you had to look up the cards each time, that would be bad. But, if you only had five cards in your deck, you could probably remember those. Other than fighters, five feats is a 10th ish level character. A player should be able to know what a given feat does considering he only gets a new one every three levels. It's not like feats are shifting constantly.

But, I think I agree with your point more than disagree, so its all good.

 

[Psion]

But elegant == simple. It's a necessary, not a sufficient condition. For example, you can't get much simpler than hit points, but I wouldn't say they're elegant.

This is a perfect example of how one person's requirements and values set the bar for what qualifies as elegant.

You see, I find most alternatives to HP to be too complicated and/or don't acheive the same things that HP does as simply as HP does. Yet you don't find them elegant. Why is that? Probably because they don't meet some requirement you have.

Now consider the situation from the other side of the fence. Consider many of the points that have been brought forth in this thread claiming D&D is complex. Consider the simpler alternatives. Do those simpler alternatives acheive the same thing? If not, then for someone out there, it fails to perform some function they find important to their gaming experience.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander here.

 

[Nebulous]

As any person who's played a 3.0 or 3.5 game and dealt with Attack of Opportunity rules, they throw any part of D20 system's elegance out the window. Anytime anything remotely looking like an AoO happens in my game, the yellow flags hit the field and we all scramble for the PHB. Same can be said for grappling. Any semblance of fun is killed as rules chapter and verse are read aloud.

As I said earlier, I think many of the aspects of True 20 clear up some of this "fun-killer" because it hews closer to the original intent of D20. While grappling remains, AoO is gone, and damage actually impacts your ability to fight, rather than simply ticking off hit points until you reach 0 and panic. Feats are written in simple paragraph of two or three sentances and skills are combined, like move silent and hide into stealth.

Too bad the wealth system blows like it does in D20 Modern.

Bento, i agree with your post almost completely. Last night the DM switched out our 6th level AE characters for a surprise adventure: 17th level characters. I actually had to run two spellcasters i'd never seen before, he was kind enough to print out everything ahead of time. Anyway, my point is that we fought 4 monsters, with a party of 5 people, and it took over 3 hours. The Grappling Rules were HORRENDOUS as two of the PC's were grapple machines with 4 attacks and prehensile tails and special pin maneuvers. I just gave up trying to follow the action as i was frantically searching two spellbooks for 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells i'd never even seen. It was fun as a one-shot, but D&D just breaks down the fun factor for me at high level. It's an overload of options, spells, quirks, abilities, magic, just everything. The grapple rules for me are about as non-elegant as anything i can imagine, because after 6 years or so of using them i still can't quote verbatim what needs to be done without cracking the book open.

I don't mind complex rules, but for a combat action as common as wrestling, it always slows the game down. Fortunately the DM was pretty saavy with the rules and kept it from heading to a standstill.

 

[Psion]

It would also simplify monster advancement and monster tweaking. And also monster "regression" à la Savage Species to play a powerful type of monster from level 1 onward, gradually getting all the powers of the creature. And it would open the way to a more elegant method for creating templated monsters such as half-dragon ogre or half-fiend minotaur: monster class multiclassing.

Sheer elegance.

I consider savage species monster progressions rather inelegant, actually. As to why, each is Ad Hoc. It doesn't follow standard rules for class progression -- it sort of shoehorns in extra "non HD" levels to make a creature playable at lower levels. A worthwhile goal, but ugly.

I find racial paragon levels to be a superior solution since they do follow the pattern set out for classes.


As an unrelated note a few posters have posted how any instance of two resolution systems in inelegant. I disagree with this notion. Trying to represent two activities that behave differently and trying to tuck them under the same mechanic often results in a worse model of one or both of the activities being modeled, and thus creates "inelegance creep."

 

[Hussar]

Bento, i agree with your post almost completely. Last night the DM switched out our 6th level AE characters for a surprise adventure: 17th level characters. I actually had to run two spellcasters i'd never seen before, he was kind enough to print out everything ahead of time. Anyway, my point is that we fought 4 monsters, with a party of 5 people, and it took over 3 hours. The Grappling Rules were HORRENDOUS as two of the PC's were grapple machines with 4 attacks and prehensile tails and special pin maneuvers. I just gave up trying to follow the action as i was frantically searching two spellbooks for 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spells i'd never even seen. It was fun as a one-shot, but D&D just breaks down the fun factor for me at high level. It's an overload of options, spells, quirks, abilities, magic, just everything. The grapple rules for me are about as non-elegant as anything i can imagine, because after 6 years or so of using them i still can't quote verbatim what needs to be done without cracking the book open.

I don't mind complex rules, but for a combat action as common as wrestling, it always slows the game down. Fortunately the DM was pretty saavy with the rules and kept it from heading to a standstill.

I'm sorry, but, this is somewhat bogus. Had you actually PLAYED those characters from 1st to 17th level, then there would be a MUCH gentler learning curve. Yes, high level play is complicated. There's a bazillion things more to be concerned about than a low level game.

In other words, it helps to learn to drive before getting into a Ferrari.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm sorry, but, this is somewhat bogus. Had you actually PLAYED those characters from 1st to 17th level, then there would be a MUCH gentler learning curve. Yes, high level play is complicated. There's a bazillion things more to be concerned about than a low level game.

In other words, it helps to learn to drive before getting into a Ferrari.

My point really was that i don't like the grappling rules regardless of the level. I just feel that they are inelegant and cumbersome in a system that i otherwise i really like. Just my opinion anyway, for whatever that's worth.