The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[Rel]

The game that I've adopted that I think hits the mark in terms of elegance and simplicity is Risus. As a bonus, it's completely free and the rules are about 6 pages long (including illustrations with stick figures).

Thus far I can't find any situation, in any genre, that it can't handle. Nonetheless, it isn't for everyone. It is fairly demanding from a roleplaying standpoint and can be difficult for those who tend to rely on the rules to define their character's actions.

But I've not encountered anything that approaches it in terms of simplicity and ease of use. Prep for my wife's solo game last night took about 5 minutes. It took longer to gather together the minatures that I wanted to use.

 

[Delta]

A DM or player need only learn the exceptions that apply to the monsters he runs or the character he builds.

I was thinking about this closely last night. This is reasonable for players, who are playing a single character, from 1st level on up every step of the way.

But in most other cases it breaks down. A DM needs to have some familiarity with every single feat that every monster in a published adventure has (and that's lots and lots nowadays). In D&D 3.5, every unintelligent beast is required by the rules to have batches of feats (e.g., dinosaurs with lots of exceptional feats). The DM also needs to analyze all the feats in the system for every NPC that he stats out in the game. That process alone caused my personal DM'ing to grind to a halt in the last year or two. Even a player stepping into a one-shot with a higher level character suffers from having to learn the feats that he or she has.

Finally, I have to disagree with the idea that "you can have complicated mechanics hidden with an easy interface". Yes, this makes sense for computer design (and I have been a software engineer). But, it doesn't make sense for a pen-and-paper game where the players are expected to do all the number crunching manually. When D&D requires computer support to play it, it will have truly ploymorphed into a different kind of gaming experience.

 

[Rothe]

I was arguing/discussing with my manager at lunch today about the d20 rules system (using D&D for examples). His claim was that d20 isn't an elegant system, compared to things like Fudge (never heard of it), because of the large amount of rules and sub-systems that get added on top of the main "d20 + modifier" mechanic. His supporting examples included 1. the entirety of the Feat system, many of which are little rules add-ons, like Cleave, 2. the large number of ranged damage dealing spells when only a few would suffice and 3. attacks of oppotunity. He also said it was strange to have so many complex systems to provide options and realism, but also to have an extremely abstract hit points system.

Now, I argued against this mostly on principle, because surely the system I've played and loved for so long must be elegant, right? Right? But it turns out I can't argue myself out of a cardboard box, and I can't just let this go, so can anyone help me out? (Or show me that my position is hopeless?) Thanks.

Hi SWAT, while I certainly wouldn't call d20 elegant,* one might call it detailed and rich. It is certainly not a simple game IMHO in the amount of rules and detail it requires one to remember for fast play. But simple was never a requirement for me to play a game. On a more fundamental point, I personally wouldn't argue with my manager about game systems, try a potentially less contentious topic like politics or religion.

*elegant to me has the following relative meaning, if game system A can provde a better "simulation" of whatever game play you want than game system B, using rules of the same or less complexity, than system A is more elegant than B. One of many points of difference becomes what degree of "simulation" one desires and what one wants to "simulate/play". I use simulation loosely and not in any game theory sense.

 

[diaglo]

But it turns out I can't argue myself out of a cardboard box, and I can't just let this go, so can anyone help me out?

your manager is correct. admit to him his superior stance and you will feel better.

read here for more information: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

so the best in this situation is just to skip to the 4th step and accept that he is correct.

 

[Odhanan]

your manager is correct. admit to him his superior stance and you will feel better.

read here for more information: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

so the best in this situation is just to skip to the 4th step and accept that he is correct.

Ohhh. Great link, Diaglo! *bookmarked* Thanks!

 

[Particle_Man]

I find the fatigue rules in 3.x to be inelegant. I would much rather they simply say "you are -1 to hit and damage on all attacks" and leave it at that. As it is, it can have a "cascade" effect upon saving throws, skill checks, and encumbrance level, which has further effects on skill checks and movement rate and armor class.

 

[Dav]

I agree that those feats are difficult to use and learn, but I think the solution is to build a better design model for feats.

Imagine this world:

Improved Disarm I: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when attempting to disarm a foe.
Improved Disarm II: When you attempt to disarm a foe, your opponent does not have the chance to disarm you.
Improved Disarm III: You gain a +4 bonus on all disarm attempts.

Sounds like this world has already been imagined in part with your "Iron Heroes" game.

 

[painandgreed]

With the move to a single XP chart and a unifying d20 mechanic, 3E has become more elegant* in some ways, while with the inclusion of mechanics that have no place in the system and have never been seen before such as the paying XP to make items, it has become less elegant. Overall, I think this is the most elegant we've ever seen D&D. Elegance is a realative term and the designers have not really made any attempt to make the system elegant. With the # to 3.5, they simplified some things and complicated others. Between the two game design criteria or playability or realism, D&D has always been in the middle someplace and firmly remains there. It's going to be more elegant than some systems and less than others.

*Elogance in this case being similar to elognace in physics where a single equation can be used to describe many situations. Elogance in gaming would be a simple system that could be used for many different mechanics. d20 came a long way, but we still have percentile rolls and other mechanics that aren't related to a roll of a d20 with mods.

 

[Psion]

Imagine this world:

Improved Disarm I: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when attempting to disarm a foe.
Improved Disarm II: When you attempt to disarm a foe, your opponent does not have the chance to disarm you.
Improved Disarm III: You gain a +4 bonus on all disarm attempts.

D&D, Powered By Spycraft?

(For those who missed it, many spycraft class abilities are staged this way... and they add.)

Elegance doesn't have anything to do with exceptions-based mechanics. Magic is an incredibly elegant game, and it's entirely built on exceptions. If anything, exceptions make a game much easier to learn. A DM or player need only learn the exceptions that apply to the monsters he runs or the character he builds.

Definitely. This is why I argue the "bridge" PrCs are an optimal solution for multiclassing. To try to make the base system handle this would introduce complications in the base system that most players don't get any use out of.

 

[genshou]

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."

For a good example of this, see d20 Future's starship combat rules.