The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[Psion]

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.

I disagree with that statement.

I consider one of the more tedious accounting tasks of D&D to be skill rank purchasing.

Rolemaster takes the same problem to the next level. You know how D&D has in class and cross class skill costs? Well in rolemaster, each class has a table of skill costs, and each individual skill allows you to buy a varying number of ranks for each level, and with potentially differing costs for each rank.

 

[Tsillanabor]

The previous versions were far more inelegant. I happen to enjoy the clunky old system. I like the fact that there are tons of spells and feats so I can create an enemy unlike anything my players have seen before. For all of the supposed inelegance, we rarely have to stop a game to check rules.

 

[Turjan]

I disagree with that statement.

I consider one of the more tedious accounting tasks of D&D to be skill rank purchasing.

Rolemaster takes the same problem to the next level. You know how D&D has in class and cross class skill costs? Well in rolemaster, each class has a table of skill costs, and each individual skill allows you to buy a varying number of ranks for each level, and with potentially differing costs for each rank.

That's actually a good example why I have principal difficulties with the discussion about the "elegance" of games.

With skill (or feats), I can principally understand a "variable cost" model. If you think of two skills that, by themselves, are only moderately useful but, taken together, give a big synergism boost, I can imagine a system where buying each of the skills alone is cheap, but buying the second one would cost considerably more. This would result in a very complicated table for skill costs, but the result would be "more balanced". Which is better? That depends on taste. Most popular games seem to target for some kind of middle ground.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

Awesome. Are we talking this next month or the next three months?

 

[Greg K]

I disagree with that statement.

I consider one of the more tedious accounting tasks of D&D to be skill rank purchasing.

Rolemaster takes the same problem to the next level. You know how D&D has in class and cross class skill costs? Well in rolemaster, each class has a table of skill costs, and each individual skill allows you to buy a varying number of ranks for each level, and with potentially differing costs for each rank.

In RMSSRMFRP you have only skill category costs (wiith restricted/everyman/occupational modifying how many ranks you get for each rank you buy). While the category costs for ranks might differ based on profession, the costs for each category are right there on your sheet.

 

[librarius_arcana]

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.

And most of those are old and long out of print, (fun thing is most of those games also have class's and levels, just like D&D, )

Arrowflight
Angel
Buffy: The Vampire Slayer (or anything unisystem, for that matter)
Burning Wheel
BESM
Silhouette core
Call of Cthulhu (anything basic)
Earthdawn
Feng Shui
Exalted (anything storyteller)
D6 Adventure (anything D6)

Non of these is a "booklet" as you put it, in fact most never are
you should really do your homework,

I could go on and on, better still try looking at this
http://www.leisuregames.com/acatalog/Main_Catalogue_ROLEPLAYING_GAMES_17.html

 

[Psion]

Non of these is a "booklet" as you put it, in fact most never are
you should really do your homework,

So does every single post of yours have to include a smarmy and unsupported slam on your opponent's intellegence or dilligence? Or is addressing the point itself too much to ask?

 

[Rel]

So does every single post of yours have to include a smarmy and unsupported slam on your opponent's intellegence or dilligence? Or is addressing the point itself too much to ask?

I must agree. Librarius, speaking as a moderator, there is nothing strictly against the rules with your posts dripping with condescention. Speaking as a fellow poster, I find myself not wishing to bother reading your posts as I anticipate an encounter with same.

 

[librarius_arcana]

So does every single post of yours have to include a smarmy and unsupported slam on your opponent's intellegence or dilligence? Or is addressing the point itself too much to ask?

Not only rude but also wrong,

 

[Treebore]

I define an elegant RPG as one that is simple and gets the job done. 3E D&D isn't it. The one that suits my tastes, and lets me use all the inelegant OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E material I want with relative ease is C&C (Castles and Crusades). It uses the d20 mechanics of positive AC and positive saves, then has a wonderful abstract system that allows every character to attempt to pull off a feat like maneuver or effect, and skills for each class are based on common sense, not defined lists, unless I want there to be a list, so there is.

Sure the classes are iconic, but with being able to use virtually any feat from 3E (that doesn't increase a skill check), a "common sense" list of skills, I find the characters to be a lot "KEWLER" than the restricted characters tied down with "feat chains" and skill lists. Plus we get to concentrate on having fun and creating a cool story together, not referencing rule books and not spending a half an hour or more levelling up characters trying to decide on which feat I want to take next.

I find roll your HD, add your base to hit, and up your level number, lets game, to be a lot better.

So C&C is my personal definition of "elegance". Its the D&D game I waited almost 20 years to be created. I have to thank 3E for that, because without 3E C&C would never have been created. C&C is a d20 OGL game for a reason.

Plus I have to admit 3E is a good game for people to start out with. Everything, and I do mean everything, is spelled out for you somewhere in the rule books. One of them. Which one is your needle in the hay stack to find, but it is there. The most relevant likely being in the PH or DMG.

That is why my kids prefer DMing 3E. They have rules telling them how to DM. When they feel "comfortable" with knowing the rules they will switch to C&C. IE they need to be confident in making rulings that aren't backed up in black and white print. Even though every rules question that has come up in the C&C game has been covered.

For the record I still play 3E, I'll just never DM it again.