# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## "Exception-Based Design"

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

33 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

Manxome
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 977
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Manxome » Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:49 pm

> RandomCasualty2 wrote:

> > Manxome wrote:
> > EBD rules just end up simpler because you never bother to define how abilities X and Y interact, and you don't notice that omission on a casual reading. Centralized design can choose to ignore those sorts of interactions and be just as simple, it's just that the flaw is now easier to discover.

> EBD interaction is done through tags, like M:tG works. And it still allows interaction, so long as your tagging system is good enough.
> You can have stuff like "an attack with the weapon keyword automatically misses".

Missing the point. Yes, you can have some abilities that interact with each other. That's not the problem. The problem is all the abilities that have to interact, but you're not sure how.
You end up with "double damage" and "+2 damage" and you're not sure whether you deal 2x+2 or 2(x+2) or whether you only get to apply one (and if so, whether you choose the min, the max, or by some other method).
Or you end up with "convert slashing damage to fire" and "convert slashing damage to ice" and you're not sure whether to apply attacker's choice, defender's choice, neither, half of each, full damage of both, a single damage packet flagged as both "fire" and "ice," etc.
Or you get "convert slashing damage to fire" and "convert fire damage to ice" and you don't have the slightest idea whether you can take the transitive closure or not.
Or player A has "nullify all opponent's red powers (blue)" and player B has "nullify one of opponent's blue powers (red)" and you don't know which gets priority.
With a centralized design, it's much easier to write these powers in such a way that you can use both of them in the same fight and still know how it's all supposed to work out, and if it's still written ambiguously, it's easier to see the ambiguity.
And all of this was a secondary point to my primary argument, which was that you can still have centralized design and quick reference without bloat by copying only the relevant details of the general rule into the specific monster's description. If just the relevant portions are still longer than they would be if you had written an EBD rule, then that means that the generalized rule is actually more powerful and you would lose actual game functionality by going to EBD, so you're not actually looking at equivalent cases.
Therefore, quick reference is not an advantage of EBD, it's an advantage of writing your rulebook to use duplication isntead of symbolic links. You have the option to do that every bit as well with centralized design as with EBD design, but unlike with EBD, you also have the option not to.
Even if I was wrong about everything else in my post, that point still stands, and nothing you have said would change that. The rest of it was just explaining why someone would plausibly make the mistake of looking at non-equivalent cases.
Top

rapa-nui
  Journeyman
  Posts: 117
  Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:23 am

###

- Quote

Post by rapa-nui » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:22 pm

Manxome is right.
Take a look at MTG. In theory, every card has all the rules you need play with it, but in effect, resolving certain interactions requires referencing some very specific clarifications in the Comprehensive Rules (a document that makes US tax forms look straightforward and intuitive by comparison).
And yes, Centralized design has the option of duplicating information for ease of reference, which can make it as 'streamlined' as EBD when properly done.
To the scientist there is the joy in pursuing truth which nearly counteracts the depressing revelations of truth. ~HP Lovecraft
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:44 pm

Yeah I mean I guess you can possibly duplicate stuff with Centralized design, it's just that generally it's impractical because centralized design has bigger more generalized rules, which are more difficult to replicate.
Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:08 pm

> RC wrote:which are more difficult to replicate

My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

rapa-nui
  Journeyman
  Posts: 117
  Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:23 am

###

- Quote

Post by rapa-nui » Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:59 am

The difficulty of replicating rules lies in their inherent complexity and size, not on their organizational scheme. It is possible Centralized design may tend towards lengthier and more complex rules as the author feels he can simply refer back to them when necessary. However, this need not be true.
Also, no (game) system (to my knowledge) is completely centralized or completely exception-based. We're really talking about a continuum here, where one end of the spectrum represents more and more inherited values and components.
To the scientist there is the joy in pursuing truth which nearly counteracts the depressing revelations of truth. ~HP Lovecraft
Top

JonSetanta
  King
  Posts: 5512
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: interbutts

###

- Quote

Post by JonSetanta » Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:24 am

Many rules: bad.
Few rules: good (if of high quality and balance), but be prepared for some 'splainin to do, Lucy.

> The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑
> Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
> Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.

Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:45 am

> rapa-nui wrote:The difficulty of replicating rules lies in their inherent complexity and size, not on their organizational scheme. It is possible Centralized design may tend towards lengthier and more complex rules as the author feels he can simply refer back to them when necessary. However, this need not be true.
> Also, no (game) system (to my knowledge) is completely centralized or completely exception-based. We're really talking about a continuum here, where one end of the spectrum represents more and more inherited values and components.

It's definitely a shades of grey situation.
It's just that for the most part centralized rules don't tend to get replicated anywhere. Even 4E follows that rule. As you don't see them repeating anywhere the basic combat structure or what basic move means. That's just shit you've got to know.
Top

Amra
  Knight
  Posts: 400
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Amra » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:37 pm

> angelfromanotherpin wrote: Of course, it's worth noting that in the 4e MM, the Petrifying Gaze of a Basilisk is different from the Petrifying Gaze of a Medusa. Quite apart from having different save modifiers and areas of effect, being blind makes you immune to one of them and not the other.
> <<snippage>>
> Of course, both powers have the Gaze type, which you have to look up anyway, so what was even the point?

I finally got around to looking this up, just as I was about to hit "Send" on an e-mail quoting this very scenario. The Petrifying Gaze of each creature actually works in exactly the same way (area of effect and attack roll aside). It's just that the Medusa entry explicitly mentions that blinded creatures are immune, whereas the Basilisk entry - which also has the Gaze keyword for that ability - doesn't say so. However, the Gaze keyword description states that blinded creatures are immune, so really either both entries should have mentioned it explicitly or neither should.
The Basilisk does, in addition, have the Baleful Gaze property, which explicitly works on blinded creatures... but despite the name, that property doesn't have the Gaze keyword and thus doesn't contradict anything, although it is pretty stupid.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

33 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS