The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[Hussar]

If we're going to go with vehicle analogies, I've always seen 3e as a BMW Z3. It's German engineered, so it rarely breaks. Unfortunately, when it does, it's REALLY expensive to fix. Take a look at polymorph and you'll see what I mean.

Staffan's point about when complexities pop up is well made. If you are forced to consult three or four charts with every PC action (GURPS, I'm looking at you), then it is difficult to say the system is elegant. Yes, there are some clunky rules in DnD - grapple probably being one that comes up the most since so many creatures have improved grab.

A lot of the others simply don't crop up THAT often. Take concealment as an example. That's going to really depend on the campaign how often it pops up. Personally, I've rarely seen it. Then again, I just played in the Shackled City, and the bloody skulks were concealed all the time.

Of course, all it does is add one extra die roll, so, is it really klunky?

 

[genshou]

A lot of the others simply don't crop up THAT often. Take concealment as an example. That's going to really depend on the campaign how often it pops up. Personally, I've rarely seen it. Then again, I just played in the Shackled City, and the bloody skulks were concealed all the time.

Of course, all it does is add one extra die roll, so, is it really klunky?

No. Concealment is easy.

 

[bento]

Can't argue with you there Morgan. But there's a space between when someone picks up a rule system for the first time to read it and actually sitting down to play.

I've shown several people the FUDGE systems and after a cursory look and "interesting" comment, their head's dive back down into their GURPS or D20 books with dreams of their next KEWL character or adventure.

As elegant as those systems are (and I agree they are) the package has to be able to get people to actually try a system out. But they read like a generic tool kit, and unless you have something specific in mind to do with the rules, it doesn't get past the reading stage. I even picked up a copy of Terra Incogninta and have never been able to convince anyone to play. But if I say, let's play D20 Modern, folks are all over that.

The love/hate I have with a system like D20 is the tactical, drawing on the mat, measuring distance and taking 10 minutes to decide what to do that many combat encounters turn into. As much as I try to streamline things, many nights I'm just drained if we run more that 2 combat encounters.

Enough kavetching on my part.

 

[mearls]

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

I've been drafted to write some articles for the Wizards web site. I think I'm going to tackle the question of elegance and design in an upcoming one, and use the swimming rules as an example. So while they aren't typed up right now, soon they will be.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I've noticed this seems to be a trait of yours in several threads I've seen, one that I believe ColonelHardisson was trying to highlight. It's true because you say it's true or just go ask someone else and they'll agree with you. This is fine as an interesting exercise in ego management, but I'd still like to see you explain why you have an opinion rather than telling the audience here that your opinion is in fact... fact.

LoL,

That is may opinion, (Which needless to say, I really shouldn't have to explain,)
The words you use and the way this is written leads me to conclude that you have an agenda, not trying to "bait" me are you by any chance?,

And as to fact, there will always be people like you who seem to need to argue the length of a pieice of string, (whether you believe it or not), I will not explain this any further with you, take it or leave it, (I'm guessing I have more experience across a broader number of systems than you) or better still go get yourself educated on this subject,

but I'll help you with alittle clue, look how complex 3.5 system is compaired to other fantasy games out there,

Now view in terms of "Elegance"





Btw, if you try to reply to one of my post again in a personal fashion, I will not waste my time by replying to yours

 

[Gez]

A few examples of things that I do not find elegant in D&D:


Spell lists. What spell can be cast by who depends on the spell and on the class. This hurts the modularity of the game -- is that spell from Tome & Blood on the Wu-Jen spell list? Why is that spell level 2 for class X but level 4 for class Y, and level 3 on the clerical domain Z? To make it elegant, spells must get rid of spell list entirely, and instead get more qualifiers. That's why my house rules do not have "wizard spell" but instead "complex arcane spell". Wizards have access to simple and complex arcane spells, so it works for them.

Another thing that's not elegant is power level. There are three different measures, a creature's HD (this is used by spells and other in-game estimations of a monster's power), a creature's CR (this represents the creature's power for a short-lived combat situation), and a creature's ECL (this represents the creature's power over a long series of challenge, not all being combat). It's all very confusing -- an elegant system would have only HD, and then ECL=CR=HD.

 

[Hussar]

but I'll help you with alittle clue, look how complex 3.5 system is compaired to other fantasy games out there,

Would that be games like Gurps, Rolemaster, or Hackmaster by any chance? Perhaps Rifts or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Maybe MegaTraveller where it takes about three hours to create a character and you can possibly die during creation?

I admit, I'm not even all that system curious and I can think of half a dozen major games FAR more complex than 3.5 DnD. Granted, there's a ton of simpler ones as well, but, let's compare apples to apples shall we? I'm not talking about the one booklet games that have proliferated over the years.

Another thing that's not elegant is power level. There are three different measures, a creature's HD (this is used by spells and other in-game estimations of a monster's power), a creature's CR (this represents the creature's power for a short-lived combat situation), and a creature's ECL (this represents the creature's power over a long series of challenge, not all being combat). It's all very confusing -- an elegant system would have only HD, and then ECL=CR=HD.

But, the three different things are measuring three completely different elements in the game. One doesn't measure weight with a yardstick. Effective Character Level has zero to do with either hit dice or it's abilities in one combat. There was a Sage column in Dragon talking about this that I remember.

Take a hound archon. It's got an LA of 5 and an ECL of 11. Yet a CR of 4 Seems like a mistake right? Wrong. One of the biggest abilities for a player hound archon is his ability to constantly use the Aid spell. No limit. Thus, the entire party is going to have +1/hit and damage and an extra hit die pretty much constantly. That's a pretty big effect. Yet, it's still only got 6 hit dice. It dies pretty quick against 4 sixth level characters.

Hit dice do not measure anything really. Sure, caster level is determined by hit dice, but, well, that's in keeping with determining CR. Hit dice X gives you a rough guestimate of CR before refining it with extra abilities.

The thing is, CR is by far not an exact science. It was never meant to be. It's a good estimate, but, that's about all. Like all "good guesses" it's sometimes right and sometimes way off. That doesn't make it elegant or inelligant, just a very rough yardstick. There's no way you could make HD=CR=LA. It just won't work.

While elegant does mean simple, it doesn't mean wrong.

 

[Psion]

Maybe MegaTraveller where it takes about three hours to create a character and you can possibly die during creation?

[sidetrack...]
Factually incorrect.

Maybe if you are fairly new, it might take you 3 hours to make a character in MT. But for the sake of argument, I'll give you that it's possible. But then, it might take someone 3 hours to make a fudge character.

But here's the factually incorrect part: you cannot die by the standard MT rules during chargen.
[/sidetrack]

I admit, I'm not even all that system curious and I can think of half a dozen major games FAR more complex than 3.5 DnD. Granted, there's a ton of simpler ones as well, but, let's compare apples to apples shall we? I'm not talking about the one booklet games that have proliferated over the years.

Of course. It's common practice among the self-declared gaming elite to convince themselves that the only reason someone would persist with a game like D&D is because they have insufficient exposure to the other games out there. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

As the Colonel and I have stated, this is very often not the case. I used to be part of a group that tried new games monthly, if not faster. I was probably the first person in the gaming community in Bremerton to try rules light games. But eventually one learns where there tastes lie, and which games meet those tastes.

But, the three different things are measuring three completely different elements in the game. One doesn't measure weight with a yardstick.

Precisely.

A game can only be said to be inelegant, IMO, if you can acheive the same result in a simpler manner. Acheiving a different result by cutting corners and banking on the GM to make up the difference, will not make your game elegant. Cutting out unecessary cruft, will.

I can think of several instances of inelegancies in the D&D rules, but don't think that having a robust rules set makes it inelegant. But then, my judgements of what's inelegant is largely an outgrowth of my very personal cost/benefit analyisis. Frex, I think the time and hassle expended in tracking synergy bonus is not worth the hassle for the amount of realism it acheives, but some might find it a very important point.

The bottom line is this: any analysis of the quality of an RPG is worthless if you don't factor in the values of those who aspire to play it.

 

[Gez]

But, the three different things are measuring three completely different elements in the game. One doesn't measure weight with a yardstick.

I KNOW.

But I want a metric system. One cubic decimeter of water is one liter is one kilogramme. I thus want my monsters to be made of cubic decimeters of water so that a yardstick will give me their weight. Because, let's face it, I want one power level measure that measures power level. Not a gajillion different power levels.

If the monsters were designed with the idea that they must be balanced toward HD = CR = ECL, we'd have a smaller statblock and a simpler rule for experience, classed monsters, monstrous player characters, and so on. In essence, in fact, we'd not even notice there are rules for playing monsters or giving class levels to monsters, because it would be the same rule as everything else.

In short, it would be more elegant.

 

[Turjan]

Would that be games like Gurps, Rolemaster, or Hackmaster by any chance?

I never played Rolemaster, which means the following is based on hearsay. I heard that Rolemaster is actually quite a bit simpler than D&D 3.x. It's just more cumbersome because all of these tables. If this were true, it would be a good example for a system that is not very elegant; at least how I understand the word.