The Elegance of d20 and D&D

[SWAT]

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.

 

[Psion]

"Elegant" is a favorite buzzword of the rules light crowd. Don't fight on their territory.

Instead, discuss with them the "ad hoc" or "haphazard" nature of rules light games, and speak of how you prefer "robustness" in the system.

Or you could admit it's all a matter of taste. But if you are going to fight a rhetorical war, strike from the high ground.

 

[jmucchiello]

Why d20 is not an elegant system?
* It does not scale well without alteration. The epic rules alter the saving throw and BAB progressions because otherwise the distance between good save vs bad saves exceeds the d20 range.
* Monsters use very different rules than PCs for advancement. This is really a correlary to the above. There is no limit to the BAB of an Outsider. So a 40 HD Outsider has +40 BAB and 40th level fighter has only a +30 BAB. But if a PC is playing a pit fiend/fighter he has a 20HD + 20d10 fighter HD and his BAB is still +30.
* The system allows and sometime encourages adding modifiers from more than one ability score to a DC check. This doesn't scale with high level characters. A typical primary ability modifier might be +6 at a certain level (I don't want to debate what level that is). This is an assumption of the CR system. If you can use to ability modifiers to add +10 to the same roll, you are outside of the system's assumptions about advancing ability modifiers.
* While the way to resolve an action is unified (D20 + mods versus a DC), the way to get that DC is not very unified. It relies of charts and tables from each subsystem. Sometime HD matter, sometimes they don't.
* The system assumes that character spend wealth on magic items. This magic item subsystem is a point buy system imposed over the class system. And determining the costs/value of some magic items are not well defined within the system.
* There exist mechanics other than d20+mods versus DC in the system: Concealment uses percentage dice. Fortifying armors use percentage dice. Turning Undead is just weird.
* The vancian spell system, regardless of how you feel about it, is not elegant. Each spell is in itself an exception to the rules. Elegant systems provide frameworks that you can plug into.
* etc.

Why I don't care?
* I can house rule stuff that bugs me and most of the above doesn't bug me enough to house rule it (even though I certainly acknowledge the cracks in the system exist.)
* Or I can use someone else's alterations of the sytem to fill in the cracks. All that 3rd party stuff has gotta be good for something.
* 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.

Why you should look up FUDGE?
* You should always read about other RPG systems. They help you by broadening your horizons. Even if you never play FUDGE, it will show you that there is not One True Way to role-play and that can only improve your D&D games.

 

[Psion]

* The vancian spell system, regardless of how you feel about it, is not elegant. Each spell is in itself an exception to the rules. Elegant systems provide frameworks that you can plug into.

To be fair, I don't think that's true anymore.

Things like stacking of modifier types and pre-defined conditions make things more akin to hero where you describe the spell using existing terminology and conventions.

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.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Personally, I think he's right -- d20 isn't a very elegant rules system compared to some of the others. However, elegant is somewhat subjective, and even if we all agree exactly what "elegant" means in RPG rules, elegance isn't everything.

The bottom line is having fun. If you're having a good time playing d20, that's what really counts.

Incidentally, I've looked at FUDGE and FATE. Pretty interesting systems, and probably worth a look. I've never run or played them, though.

 

[bento]

It all comes down to the kind of gaming experience you're looking for.

If you like running tactical battles with precise rules and documented options, then D20 is your bag.
If you like narrating combat as a story with the end-goal your focus, then FUDGE/FATE is your bag.

D20 strength: focus on character creation (and development) and tactical combat
FUDGE strength: focus on character interaction and storytelling

D20 weakness: lack of rule knowledge slows game and rewards go to mini-maxing rules
FUDGE weakness: fewer options to make characers unique and requires unified vision of all participants to succeed

You know you could split the difference and go with True20. It has no AoO and simplified magic system while keeping feats and core D20 mechanics. With some effort, you can adapt it to most any setting you can imagine.

 

[librarius_arcana]

"Elegant" is a favorite buzzword of the rules light crowd. Don't fight on their territory.

What!!?? LoL

Dude d20 is not elegant, fact


but it could be


And totally agree with jmucchiello, go check out other systems,
you can't dispute the facts until you understand what you are arguing about,

 

[Quasqueton]

elegance - Refinement, grace, and beauty in movement, appearance, or manners. Tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. Restraint and grace of style. Scientific exactness and precision.

elegant - Characterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style. Refined and tasteful in appearance or behavior or style. Of seemingly effortless beauty in form or proportion.

elegant (in mathematics) - Combining simplicity, power, and a certain ineffable grace of design.

ineffable - Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. Not to be uttered; taboo.

Quasqueton

 

[Psion]

elegance - Refinement, grace, and beauty in movement, appearance, or manners. Tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation. Restraint and grace of style. Scientific exactness and precision.

Heh... by that definintion, I don't know of many elegant rules light games. I don't know many rules light games that are exact or precise. Indeed, that seems to be the price of rules light games.

elegant - Characterized by or exhibiting refined, tasteful beauty of manner, form, or style.

The gross shortcuts many rules light games take are anything but tasteful. IMO.

ineffable - Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. Not to be uttered; taboo.

And this speaks to why I call it a buzzword. Elegance, as a term, relies on abstract qualifications.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Oh, I wanted to comment on the "many subsystems" thing. I used to agree with the common wisdom that a single, unified mechanic was superior to different subsystems for various tasks. I'm no longer as certain of that. I think keeping mechanics consistent is good, but perhaps some things deserve different mechanics. As long as any subsystems aren't overly complex, that can work quite well. That is, a handful of simple subsystems to model different things can be better than a unified mechanic that forces one-size-fits-all.

Just a thought.

To me, elegance in RPG rules means keeping things as simple and efficient as possible while maintaining enough consistency and structure to have a fun game. That's a continuum, and different people are going to have different opinions on where the "sweet spot" is. Lately, I prefer fewer/lighter rules with coarser granularity and more freedom (which is why I'm more into the "rules lite" games than d20, at the moment), but I don't subscribe to the "one true system" idea. I still play d20 games, too.

I agree with those who've said gamers should try multiple systems. New approaches and new ideas can be a lot of fun.