Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="morgan" data-source="post: 2934923" data-attributes="member: 42128">Hey there everyone.  I'm the guy spoken of in the opening post, and the discussion has been very interesting so far.  I thought I'd clarify a few things - hopefully giving people an idea of where I'm coming from.A - What is elegant?Elegance, what is it?  I design games for a living (which doesn't make my opinion any better or worse than anyone else's - just letting you know where I come from) so I think about game rules a lot.  All day, most days.  When I'm not thinking about them, I'm explaining them to other people - and trying to ensure they make sense.  To me, the easiest rules to explain to other people are those that are elegant. Some characteristics of elegance in rule systems :The rule is evident - which is to say, it's easily understood and intuitively graspedIt is consistent - it shares behaviour with other rules inside the system (you wouldn't usually mix die-pools and percentage rolls and additive damage inside the same system - at least not elegantly)It is simple - the rule outcome is achieved in the simplest possible fashion.  Think of this as an Occams Razor for game mechanics.It avoids special cases - rules that invoke other special case exemptions and extensions in specific circumstances simply make everyone's jobs harder.  You always have to be aware of these special cases, which is hard if you don't know the system inside out.I'm inherently biased towards elegant rule systems - I'm not saying that inelegant systems are broken or wrong : it's simply that I prefer elegance.  Personal choice, not for everyone.  B - What the Fudge?If D&D isn't elegant, what is?  Chosing Fudge during my discussion w/ Swat was a bad call.  As a counter-example, it fails to provide any clear indication as to what about D&D isn't elegant.  This lead the conversation down the lines of comparing rules-light verus rules-heavy.  My fault entirely, and not what I intended.Instead lets say that Savage Worlds is rules heavy AND elegant (mostly).  D20 is rules heavy AND inelegant (mostly).  These give far better potential for comparison, because they're similar games serving similar functions.  You simply wouldn't run most D20 games with Fudge, nor most Fudge games with D20.  On the other hand, most D20 scenarios could reasonably be run with SW, and vice versa.To put this in Psion's terms - they're both "robust".  C - Fun.Damn straight.  If you're having fun, who cares?  If the system does the job, why change?I run D20 (or at least I have in the past) - in fact, I've run almost every system under the sun at one point or another.  It's fine, in it's place.  With a group of players who are familiar with the conventions[1] it runs smooth.  On the other hand, with players who aren't it's not very easy to get into.  There are *so many* special cases which you won't know about until you fall into them.  This is another reason I don't consider it "elegant" - in an elegant system, you should know your options in most circumstances pretty clearly.  In D20 that's often not so.Even so, there are times and places for D20 - and one of those is when the people you're playing with all know D20 already.D - Joe Mucchiello has some good points.While this is true, I think the benefits of elegance do make for far better sessions.  These are some things I think make sessions run slowly and generally less fun.Arguments over rules.Needing to look up rules mid-game. (It breaks the flow of things, doesn't it?)Both of these issues arise much less frequently if the rule system is elegant.  So while no-one ever looks at the elegance of the system as the reason for having more fun, it often contributes.  However instead of noticing that players will comment on how smoothly everything was resolved, how much roleplaying they got to do, how many combats they ran through and how much action they packed in.  Hear hear!  If you're at all interested in the mechanics of RPG's (and there's no reason you should be - but I am!) then you owe it to yourself to check out as many different ways of approaching them as possible.E - The DealFair enough.  Once we get this milestone out of the way I'll run a set of weekly one-offs (provided SWAT's down with it) demonstrating "What I think is worth thinking about in RPG design"We'll cover Savage Worlds (Robust and Elegant), Fudge (Light and Elegant), Deadlands Classic (inelegant and flavour filled) just for starters.F - Pause for breathOkay.  There's a whole lot of other points here I think are worth engaging with and responding to.  I don't have unlimted time however - so I'll take a break here and let the show continue.  Thanks for all the feedback so far.[1] Which is, lets face it, 90% of P&P gamers.  It's the grandaddy of them all.</blockquote>

Verification