The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[Wayside]

Hit points are actually a pretty elegant answer IF all you need to know how much punishment a character can take before dying. It's entirely abstract.

In my case, the abstraction is precisely what turns me off of hit points. Ditto saving throws, stat adjustments where the bonus is a different number than the stat, etc. This stuff just makes no sense to me.

However, if the goal is some sort of nod towards realism, then HP's are not getting the job done. A new system is needed such as a wounds/vitality system.

I think elegance and realism are probably incompatible. It's hard to deal with the fact that one person can be mortally wounded yet have enough strength to fight on, while another person can be bonked on the head and rendered unconscious without really being wounded at all. Realism is mechanically tedious.

The complexity of a rule will always be dictated by the goal of those rules. Elegance will be measured on two scales - getting the job done and getting the job done better than any other means.

Absolutely. If you really want a certain kind of tactical combat, you're perfectly justified in arguing that d20 is elegant in that it's the most streamlined, intuitive way to give you what you want. I think d20 tries to have it both ways in that it courts a certain level of realism with things like AoO, then laughs in the face of realism with things like hit points. That contradiction might be one of the reasons some people aren't so hot on parts of it.

 

[Wayside]

Elegant does not mean simple. A wristwatch is an elegant device, yet it is far from simple.

A computer program can be elegant, though it consists of millions of lines of code.

Interface and mechanics are two very different things. The interface for a system can be simple and easy to use, but the mechanics, methods, and devices behind it can be incredibly complicated.

In point of fact, elegant does mean simple. It can also mean ornate, delicate, graceful, refined, luxurious, polished and any number of other things, some of which are completely different, even opposed to one another. That's language for you.

In the case of a wristwatch, you might be using one of those other meanings (or not, I've never opened one up). In any case, I'm not saying that the most elegant way is the simplest way--far from it, hence the example of hit points. A sun dial is simpler than a watch, but I certainly don't think it's more elegant.

The meaning of elegant I continue to use is this: "Of scientific processes, contrivances, etc.: ‘Neat’, pleasing by ingenious simplicity and effectiveness." It's definition 5a in the OED. 2a also has the caveat "Graceful, free from awkwardness." That seems applicable enough to game mechanics.

I agree about interfaces, especially when we're talking computers, but implementation is every bit as important as (or more important than, depending on your framework) what the user sees. I'm at a loss as to how this is relevant to the elegance of d20 though, because, while we often talk about d20 "under the hood," it's a fairly weak metaphor. d20 doesn't really have a UI, other than assigning labels to various numbers--the players are dealing directly with the mechanics. And even if d20 did have an extra layer between the creator and the user, the dissatisfaction expressed in this thread would apply as much to the UI as to whatever moves it.

Anyway, when I say that I don't feel d20 is elegant, I'm not referring to OGL games like True20, M&M and Iron Heroes, if only because those games don't have the d20 logo. Other publishers have addressed a lot of d20's problems, I think.

 

[Wayside]

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

Which is why I said "I wouldn't say they're elegant," instead of "they aren't elegant." At the end of the day, elegance in the context of this conversation is all about functionality, and functionality in an RPG is all about what works for you. If hit points work for you, then great.

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.

I agree, and I'm not pushing any particular solution on you, so let's set the tu quoque fallacy aside and move forward.

Yet you don't find them elegant. Why is that? Probably because they don't meet some requirement you have.

I personally dislike hit points because of the unnecessary level of abstraction they introduce, not out of a sense of offended realism or anything like that. My guess would be that things like hit points and saving throws were originally abstracted away from stats in order to balance the classes: this way, even if my wizard has more CON than your fighter, your fighter gets more HP. It makes sense to me that the fighter should be more durable in a fight, but I think there are better ways to represent this than hit points.

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.

I brought up hit points as an example of a rules component that is simple yet not, in my view, elegant. Simple != elegant, but elegant == simple, as the post you quoted says (i.e. simplicity is necessary for elegance, but not sufficient for it). Thus, asking me to consider simpler alternatives is a bit of a lapse in reasoning here. I'm not asking for simpler or less complex.

 

[Wayside]

Elegance is not the opposite of complexity.

I really don't see anybody claiming that the simplest rule is the most elegant one. (Edit: Oh, Gotcha. I just reread Hussar's post.) Instead a few people have said an elegant rule is as simple as you can make it, or, alternatively, an elegant rule is only as complicated as it needs to be.

Also, I don't think there's any strict relationship between complexity and elegance at all. Maybe I'm making too many distinctions here, but I'd say that, for example, Go is an amazingly elegant game, an amazingly complex game, but by no means a complicated game. It's simpler than Chess, yet far more complex.

As for Magic, it's both complex and complicated, and in some ways elegant, and in some ways not. The rules often lend themselves to odd loopholes, allowing new cards to be exploited in unexpected ways, leading to restrictions and bans. I'm not entirely satisfied with how the stack works, though the system is certainly smoother without interrupts. In many ways Magic is extremely counter-intuitive, which I see as a drawback. I'm not sure how applicable these strategy games are to d20 though. Two different beasts, and all that.

 

[Hussar]

I think elegance and realism are probably incompatible. It's hard to deal with the fact that one person can be mortally wounded yet have enough strength to fight on, while another person can be bonked on the head and rendered unconscious without really being wounded at all. Realism is mechanically tedious.

I agree that it is difficult. And I fully agree that it is tedious. But, neither of those things make it less elegant.

GURPS is a good example of this. This is a system the relies heavily on similutionist gaming. GURPS strives for mechanics which offer realistic results to actions. Thus, when you get whacked with a sword, or shot, or whatever, you have to determine a lot more details than just marking off some hit points.

And, by and large, it succeeds at doing so. I think most people who have played GURPS would say that GURPS strives for realism in its settings. Now, it may never acheive that goal, but, it certainly tries.

Does that make it less elegant than DnD? I don't believe so. The comparison falls apart because the goals are so different. If I want to hit someone in the head in DnD, I can't. Plain and simple. I remember a comic in Dragon from years back about an execution of some big nasty barbarian. He's standing there pincussioned with arrows and a clerk on the side is marking off hit points. (Granted, in 3e, with the CDG rules, it might be different, but, then again, with a high level barbarian, maybe not)

In Gurps, I consult a few tables and hit someone in the head with all the effects that come from that.

Elegance in game rules will always be based on the goal of the game. If the goal is very fast play with heavy reliance on DM interpretation, then the rules should reflect that goal - thus we have games like the aforementioned RISUS. If we want a more tactical game but not entirely simulationist, we get DnD. If we want the game to emulate realism to highest degree possible in a game, then the rules should reflect that.

It's when the rules don't reflect the game goals that they become inellegant. Multiclassing in DnD is a good example in my mind. One of the goals in DnD is Any Concept is Playable. But, this falls apart without either bridge PrC's or specific feats when applied to caster classes.

IMO, the multiclass rules work, but are inellegant because they don't work in fairly broad ways.

Polymorph and it's ilk are another example of inellegance. Rules that just explode the complexity of the game without adding a whole lot to the game itself.