The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[ColonelHardisson]

snipped the well-reasoned argument

I might differ with you here and there, but I have to say that I can completely understand your reasoning about D&D/d20's relative elegance (or lack thereof). Your post is vastly preferrable, and much more cogent, than a "just cuz" type of argument. Well said.

 

[rgard]

Just a hundred? Over the past 26 years, I've owned well over 200 RPGs. I say it is elegant. So I win.

I enjoyed that one, Sir!

Captain Gard

 

[Delta]

In my opinion, 3E increased elegance in these ways:
(1) unified d20 mechanic, (2) standardized ability score bonuses, (3) multiclassing rules, (4) making standard map scale same as miniatures.

3E decreased elegance in these ways:
(1) entire skill system, (2) entire feat system (and proliferation), (3) prestige class proliferation, (4) requirement that monsters follow rules for abilities, skills, feats, etc., (5) expectation of large number of magic items used by PCs, (6) changes to spell lists (in 3.5).

So, as much as I devoutly love the unified d20 mechanic, I think that 3E was a net loss in elegance.

 

[Hussar]

(5) expectation of large number of magic items used by PCs, (6) changes to spell lists (in 3.5).

These last two really confuse me.

Large number of magic items? Buh? 3e characters actually don't have that much magic until very high levels. 7th level character has 19k in equipment. Stat it out and you get a couple of +1 weapons, +1 armor, and a couple of other items. Four, maybe five minor magic items. This is HIGH magic?

Sure, in the mid-double digits, they have boatloads of magic, but, for 3/4 of the game, they don't. It's not until the wahoo levels that magic expectations are very high.

And the spell list changes? You mean the actual spells that appear for each character or the changes to the spells themselves? If it's the former, I actually wasn't all that aware that they had changed overmuch. If it's the latter, well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I personally find one spell per round a tad more "elegant" than 5th level wizzies blasting away with both barrels. Harm? And any number of other spell fixes that actually helped the game immensely.

 

[genshou]

And, when I'm playing a game, I rarely bask in the glow of its elegance. I've played elegant RPGs and never once during a session did I employ the logic of its die rolling mechanic/task resolution system and turn to my friends to say "That was so elegant. I have goose bumps. Don't you?" and realize from the ecstatic looks on their faces that they did indeed.

Sigged!

 

[Staffan]

Just as long as the complexities are not suffered too often, to the detriment of the game,

Another important thing is when the complexities pop up. Having to do complicated math when creating or improving a character is a little annoying, but something you can live with. Having to do it every round is not.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Another important thing is when the complexities pop up. Having to do complicated math when creating or improving a character is a little annoying, but something you can live with. Having to do it every round is not.

I agree but will add a qualification.
Take for example an underwater battle or an incorporeal foe. These are complexties that will slow down and affect an entire encounter (for possibly every round). I think this a reasonable spicing of the game. However, if every encounter in a campaign had such things going on , gameplay would simply breakdown screeching to a halt.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[catsclaw227]

In the campaign here at work, I wanted to try out some new rules for fighting underwater. The first thing I did was remove the current rules for the Swim skill and replace them with a near carbon copy of the Jump skill.

Mike -- this sounds great. Do you have it typed up somewhere? I am curious what your modifiers are regarding currents and movement.

 

[Wik]

Ah, the inelegance of d20. I'm gonna have to agree with Mr. Morgan on this one - there's a lot involved with D&D, and much of it bothers me to no end. Concealment is my current beef - it's a percentile roll, whereas much of the game is centred around d20s. I always figured it would work better to give a monster a "Concealability" score, or something, and use that score as a DC for a spot check or something to see if you can hit. Makes more sense to me than a flat percentile, and it works in line with the existing rules.

But then, as I've stated before, I'm currently on a rules-light trip, so I'm not the person to talk to about D&D... I'm sort of biased against it right now.

 

[genshou]

D&D is no more "elegant" than a typical redneck's old pickup. But we like our old pickups...

And I'd rather be driving one of them than one of your sissy cars so small I can barely sit up in them!

Or maybe I should compare D&D to a motorcycle with a twin engine. It's just fun to tinker with. You can't tinker with a scooter.