I've made a point, in my L&L manifesto, of declaring that I want to create a more elegant game. I wrote:
Elegant -- In this context, we are not talking about white tablecloths and crystal vases -- this is the mathematical sense of the word. Per the Wikipedia, "surprisingly simple yet effective and constructive." For RPGs, I take this to mean:
- Rules mechanics should be consistent, not a hodge-podge. For example, why have seperate magic systems for wizards (spell prepping), sorcerers (spontaneous casting), monks (ki), and gunslingers (grit)? Why have different rules for cohorts, familiars, and animal companions?
- Game rules should have symmetry; they should not be arbitrary. I have 12 core classes, not 11, three for each spell list. I've scored my races and classes so that they are numerically balanced. My skill system has 11 combat skills, 11 interaction skills, and 11 exploration skills. (Someday I may revise that to 12, 12, 12!)
L&L strives to be a more elegant game. Look at the number of spells per level in the spell lists, the inverse relationship between lionheart points and ability scores, and the reduction of all companions to one set of rules, for examples of what I mean.
But it occurs to me that I should see what others have had to say on this topic. So I did some googling and found eight essays on the topic. Here are my summaries and thought on these essays.
Defining Elegant Design by djuD: The author says, "Elegant design is what gives me a sense of well-made 'craft,' every piece fitting perfectly together. In order to reach this feeling, I need to streamline things, see if I can achieve the same result with 'less.' " He quotes Dieter Rams to say that elegant design is aesthetic and uses as little design as possible. djuD puts much more emphasis, it seems to me, on simplicity over aesthetics. I think the emphasis needs to go in the other direction. Gemini summarizes as "Elegant design achieves maximum effect with minimum complexity," and though I think that sounds good, but in practice it just means rules-light systems beat complex systems, with which I disagree.
What Is An Elegant Game And How Do I Create One? by Keith A. Rice: The author here also emphasizes simplicity: "An elegant game delivers its core experience to the player as simply as possible." He takes pains to say that the core experience has to include pleasing the gamer and satisfying the itch the game seeks to scratch. But it still comes down to simplicity. Now, let me say that I like simplicity too. Take companions in 3E D&D. You got rules for familiars, for animal companions, and for cohorts. In L&L, I use the exact same mechanic for all three kinds of companions. That's a simpler solution, and thus, more elegant. But I think simplicity is not at the core of it. Gemini summarizes as: "Elegant game design delivers the core experience to the player as simply as possible, emphasizing that elegance is relative to the specific problem the game aims to solve, rather than being a universal standard."
Here's an RPGNet Forum Discussion on the topic. There are a range of voices, as you would expect on a message board, but a consensus seems to consider rules to be elegant when they are "simple and uniform, yet strategically deep." Gemini summarizes the consensus thus: "elegant RPG rules design achieves maximum functionality and depth with minimal rules. It prioritizes simplicity, clarity, and efficiency, allowing a wide array of possibilities to emerge from a small set of mechanics."
And here's another message board conversation from EnWorld, What is an elegant system?. There's more talk here of simplicity but more, hear this fellow, Desdichado: "Games in the d20 family tend to be much more elegant than AD&D--even though they have more rules -- because the rules are mostly all intuitive and follow the same pattern." And he also said this: "AD&D was the worst in this regard -- absolutely lacked this kind of elegance. The system had all kinds of unrelated subsystems and subsets that you had to just know individually." This reminds me of what a poster on the RPGNet board said, "Chess is a total hack. The movement patterns for various pieces are arbitrary and have nothing to do with their ostensible theming. It's got hacky rules, like double-opening-move for pawns to speed up the game, and hacks, like en-passant capture, to get around the problems the initial hacks cause. And pawns are the only piece that capture and move differently -- why? And they can be promoted, but nothing else can -- why? Why are knights the only piece that can hop over other pieces? Then there's castling, which is a bizarre mess with preconditions that can't be derived from the current game state."
Here we come to a couple points that are just as important as simplicity to me: Elegant systems are intuitive. The opposite of "elegant" is "arbitrary and kludgy."
Gemini summarizes this conversation: "an elegant system satisfies requirements with minimal complexity. Key aspects include consistency, compactness, intuitiveness, and extensibility. Elegant systems offer numerous options with few rules, enabling easy improvisation and smooth gameplay." Meh. Sure, I would not disagree, but the insights I derive are a bit askew from that.
Ah, now here is an essayist after my heart! In Elegance vs. Beauty by RuleOfThule, the writer fights against the main thrust of elegance/simplicity, arguing that simplification leads to evisceration, that efficiency battles beauty. Gemini sums it up as, "Elegance prioritizes simple efficiency; beauty embraces complex synergy." I too reject the concept of simplicity = elegance as a core value. However, I view a more beautiful system as more elegant than an ugly one. I see aesthetic value, as well as intuitive gameplay, and, yes, a certain measure of simplicity, as facets of elegance.
In Elegance in TRPGs by Fae Errant, the author takes a deep dive into depth and complexity. They say that TTRPGs can have both and still be elegant. Gemini summarizes as, "elegance isn't about having the fewest rules, but rather having rules that are tightly integrated, intuitive, and contribute directly to the intended play experience. An elegant system avoids unnecessary mechanics, edge cases, and counterintuitive interactions."
In this Quora conversation, What's the most elegant resolution system in role playing games?, there's not a lot that's useful, but one poster cites the old Runequest mechanic of skills --
Skills are represented as a percentage. To use a skill successfully, you have to roll equal to or under your skill score. So, higher is better. During play, when you use a skill, you make a mark by the skill entry. At the end of the adventure, assuming your character survives and is still sane, for each mark, you roll percentile dice against the score you already have in the skill. If you roll higher than your skill score, you improve the score. So, as you gain more skill, it becomes more difficult to roll higher than your score. And you can't go over 100. Why it's elegant: It's a self-limiting system that increases in difficulty as you progress. Or, to put it in different words, the more skilled you are, the harder it is to get better.
Other posters talk about other "elegant" game mechanics. I asked Gemini to look at them all and tell me what they have in common, but the AI did not really get it.
In Elegance and the Development of Game Systems by Merric, there's an interesting dichotomy: "Can you have an elegant, complete system?" This makes me think about Third Edition D&D v s Fifth Edition. 3E strives to be complete. 5E gives up on covering that wide number of circumstances -- arguably in the service of ease of play, simplicity in rules, and encouraging DM immprovisation. I call that a cop out. The "simplicity" of 5E just cuts away so much depth. That's what this writer refers to as being "complete." I reject the idea that elegant rules maximize simplicity at the expense of depth and completeness. I firmly believe that elegant rules can be complex and deep.
I started this screed with my own first draft thoughts about elegance. After taking a dive into other opinions, how would I rephrase it now?
Elegant -- For roleplay games, I use "elegant" to mean aesthetically pleasing; intuitive and consistent rather than arbitrary; simple in the service of clarity, ease of play, and learning curve; complex in the service of depth, completeness, and offering players interesting options; consistent; extensible; effective; and constructive. A few specific examples:
- Rules mechanics should be consistent, not a hodge-podge, hack, or kludge. For example, why have seperate magic systems for wizards (spell prepping), sorcerers (spontaneous casting), monks (ki), and gunslingers (grit)? Why have different rules for cohorts, familiars, and animal companions? L&L features one magic system and one companion system.
- Game rules should have symmetry; they should not be arbitrary. I have 12 core classes, not 11, three for each spell list. I've scored my races and classes so that they are numerically balanced. Consider the the number of spells per level in the spell lists. My skill system has 11 combat skills, 11 interaction skills, and 11 exploration skills. (Someday I may revise that to 12, 12, 12!)
- Rules need to be more intuitive for players. I've broken with longstanding tradition in using 20 levels of spells, not nine, for example, echoing 20 levels in a class.
L&L strives to be a more elegant game — more beautiful, more thoughtful, more logical.
