Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5984825" data-attributes="member: 2205">Not liking something is not equivalent to it being inelegant.&nbsp; Preferring something inelegant is perfectly fine.&nbsp; Saying that something is elegant just because you prefer it to something else is a bit more dubious.&nbsp; I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the notion of &quot;roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to a target number&quot; as a resolution mechanic for almost everything in the game is inelegant.&nbsp; The d20 system, when it debuted, was almost&nbsp; universally praised for its elegance.Elegance and simplicity are two different things, though.&nbsp; Nobody would argue that--no matter how elegant it may be--the d20 system is simple.&nbsp; And as it progressed and more and more things were layered into it (especially feats and spells, which were basically independent and separate rule subsystems--the opposite of elegance) its hard to argue that it retained its elegance.But I'd also take exception with the main thrust of your remarks.&nbsp; Having a consistent and similar (and yes, elegant!) approach made d20 much easier to remember than a bunch of disparate subsystems.&nbsp; And where it failed to really deliver that same consistency and elegance (or where it muddied it up with too many weird modifiers and other exceptional details, a la grappling) it was difficult.&nbsp; But before it got bogged down with too many add-on rules subsystems, that was the exception rather than the rule.&nbsp; And the fact that making an attack, making a skill check, making an ability check, rolling for initiative, and making a saving throw were all basically the same rule hardly made it difficult to remember how to do any of them.&nbsp; In fact, I find the suggestion pretty funny.&nbsp; I LOLed at the very notion.From a flavor perspective, or for whatever other reason, you may not prefer it.&nbsp; But that hardly makes it inelegant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 5984825, member: 2205"] Not liking something is not equivalent to it being inelegant. Preferring something inelegant is perfectly fine. Saying that something is elegant just because you prefer it to something else is a bit more dubious. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the notion of "roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to a target number" as a resolution mechanic for almost everything in the game is inelegant. The d20 system, when it debuted, was almost universally praised for its elegance. Elegance and simplicity are two different things, though. Nobody would argue that--no matter how elegant it may be--the d20 system is simple. And as it progressed and more and more things were layered into it (especially feats and spells, which were basically independent and separate rule subsystems--the opposite of elegance) its hard to argue that it retained its elegance. But I'd also take exception with the main thrust of your remarks. Having a consistent and similar (and yes, elegant!) approach made d20 much easier to remember than a bunch of disparate subsystems. And where it failed to really deliver that same consistency and elegance (or where it muddied it up with too many weird modifiers and other exceptional details, a la grappling) it was difficult. But before it got bogged down with too many add-on rules subsystems, that was the exception rather than the rule. And the fact that making an attack, making a skill check, making an ability check, rolling for initiative, and making a saving throw were all basically the same rule hardly made it difficult to remember how to do any of them. In fact, I find the suggestion pretty funny. I LOLed at the very notion. From a flavor perspective, or for whatever other reason, you may not prefer it. But that hardly makes it inelegant. [/QUOTE]

Verification