An Interesting Bit of Complication

The opposite of "simplistic" is not always "complicated." "Simple" is a word probably overused in game design circles. It's almost always a goal and, while not a bad goal by any means, simplistic game mechanics sometimes can lead to a shallow play experience. Peter Adkison, back at Wizards of the Coast, used to tout this quote from Albert Einstein: "Everything should be as simple as it needs to be, and no simpler." It's not a bad rule of thumb.

The opposite of simplistic can, in fact, be robust. "Robust," in this context, is a word we used to describe a rule system that offered DMs and players plenty of opportunities for differentiation and varied play experiences. For example, it would be simple to have just one type of die roll for resisting spell effects in the game. Instead, there are three, making the subsystem more robust. With Reflex, Will, and Fortitude saves, you can simulate that you try to dive out of the way of some spells, others affect your mind, and some affect your physiology. You can have magic items that affect your Will saves but not the other two. You can have circumstance modifiers that affect your Reflex save but not the other two.

Robustness is good for a game, because it can allow for a better simulation of reality (or, since I always cringe a bit whenever the word "reality" is used in the context of fantasy roleplaying game, I'll say "believability" instead). More importantly, though, robust mechanics allow for differentiation and tinkering. In short, they're more likely to hold a player's interest longer.

There's a fine line between robust and overly complex, however, and that's often a measure of a good game design. And although the line is fine, there might still be a little wiggle room here and there.

For example, there's a way to make saving throws more robust without making them too much more complicated. We thought of this while working on 3rd Edition and discarded the idea because it was too much for the core rules. Each saving throw type has an associated ability score: Reflex saves are modified by Dexterity modifiers, Will saving throws are modified by Wisdom, and Fortitude saves by Constitution. There are rare cases, however, when the types of saving throws could be modified by other scores. For example, a successful Will save could allow a character to resist a spell that caused an irritating tingling on the skin that distracted him from taking actions (it takes willpower to ignore the distraction). But this Will save might be modified by Constitution, because it's a physical distraction, not a mental one. You could create mechanics for breaking out of a web by using Strength-modified Fortitude saves or rules for a battle-of-wits type competition based on mental reflexes -- a Reflex save modified by Intelligence.

Using this more elaborate system, saving throws would be noted like this: Fortitude (Con), DC 15, or Reflex (Int), DC 12. A few possible uses for different ability scores modifying saving throws might include:

Reflex (Int): Quick thinking
Reflex (Cha): Stopping an angry, charging foe
Reflex (Str): Grabbing a falling friend
Reflex (Wis): Stopping yourself before you do something foolish

Will (Con): Ignoring physical distractions
Will (Int): Enduring something intellectually challenging
Will (Cha): Resisting something that attacks your own identity (like a dominate person effect)

Fort (Str): Resisting something attempting to knock you down or hold you in place
Fort (Int): Resisting something that is physically affecting your brain

You might find, if you've got the game fairly mastered, that such a rule doesn't add too much complexity and does add some interesting robustness. Arguably, it's a robustness that's already in the rules (saves are already modified by ability scores) -- it's just expanding the concept in a slightly new direction. It's not a rule for everyone, but it may encourage some of you to find a new way to tinker with things, and for many of us, that's half the fun.