Exception-Based Design?

[Thomas Shey]

In general, I think people complaining about "exception-based design" are mostly complaining about how heavy the rules are more than anything else. It's a complaint about preference while feigning being merely descriptive. You can tell that to be the case because people only seem to use it to describe systems they wish to criticize.

Well, people who are happy with exception based design are far less to even know the term in the first place. I've certainly seen people who clearly prefer exception based design (its a topic that comes up in the superhero RPG sphere reasonably often) but they won't call it that, and there's little sign they even know the term.

 

[payn]

Well, people who are happy with exception based design are far less to even know the term in the first place. I've certainly seen people who clearly prefer exception based design (its a topic that comes up in the superhero RPG sphere reasonably often) but they won't call it that, and there's little sign they even know the terM.

I find this goes for an untold amount of gaming topics. Folks like what they like, but have never thought about it on a conceptual level.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In TTRPGs, though, the game is created out of asymmetry. An Elf is not a Dwarf, and a Wizard is not a Fighter. Whether you're playing Pathfinder 2e, 5e D&D, B/X, or Shadowdark, that's the case. Asymmetry naturally must introduce exceptions. Most characters do not get spells, but Wizards do. Most characters do not speak Dwarven, but Dwarves do.

That doesn't mean they need to be exception based. There are games that have those where the races are all assembled out of components that are common to other things in the game and are done the same way every time they're done, and have systemized ways they're done every time. They don't need to be ad-hoc from the ground up creations.

D&D is said to be exception-based because it makes Fireball work completely differently than Cone of Cold, and they're totally independent. In a game like Savage Worlds, every character just uses the Burst power! Except... not every character has the Burst power. Often, most characters don't have powers at all! You need to have the correct edges to take powers.

That's an odd usage though; after all, barring campaign limits, and character can take the edge that gives them access to that. Having to invest to get access to things doesn't make them exception based. (SW is, of course, incompletely out of the exception based sphere, because there are too many things that are built essentially ad-hoc, but its less far along on that than most things in the D&D sphere).

The problem -- if there is one -- isn't that exceptions and special rules exist that only some players can use. It's simply that there can be too many exceptions to manage. Like tracking bonuses in 3e, it can be quite tedious and error-prone to figure out what is actually going on. Sometimes, exceptions contradict each other, too. Complexity is not inherently virtuous, but how much is good is incredibly subjective. There's a reason there aren't more people sitting down to play Phoenix Command or Campaign for North Africa, but some players do.

In the same way that calls for "game balance" are often telegraphed calls for additional mechanical complexity and more crunch, calls for less "exception-based design" are often telegraphed calls for less mechanical complexity and less crunch. I don't think you will ever convince someone who is happily invested in Pathfinder 2e that "exception-based design" is a bad thing. That whole system is built around a network of exception-based rules.

PF2e is one of my three favorite games in the D&D sphere, but I don't consider exception based design a virtue. The fact that PF2e has enough other virtues for me to accept it is just that--liking it despite that, not because of it. And its possible to have complexity without exception based design--I can point at 3-4 games that minimize it that are in no way simple. They just reuse components constantly to construct more complex things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I find this goes for an untold amount of gaming topics. Folks like what they like, but have never thought about it on a conceptual level.

Its one of those things where you're only going to learn about the terminology if you find a need to talk about it in a useful fashion.

 

[Laurefindel]

I don't think it's a wrong term - there's a difference between games that have some exceptions (like chess and Monopoly) and ones that are heavily based on it. And 4e is definitely heavily based on it. Exactly how much it really differentiates 4e from earlier editions of D&D may be subject to debate and discussion on whether "exception-based design" is really that useful or a buzz word pulled out of somebody's tuchus.

I'd go further: there's a difference between games that have exceptions to the rules and ones that are conceptually designed to give PCs and NPCs different tools to actively deviate from the rules. That, to me, is exception-based design.

3e was designed with a complex set of rules. It had many variations and permutations but the rules were a relatively hermetic and self-contained system. To play the game effectively, you (theoretically) had to know all the rules to see how your specific character interacts with them. Again in theory, because you knew the rules, you should be able to predict how others interact with the same rules. As I see it, 3e was not an exception-based design despite the many exceptions here and there.

I am less familiar with 4e but from what I've seen, 4e was built with a relatively narrow set of rules as a base system, and every character had a set of powers, each an exception or derivation from the base rules. To play the game effectively, you (theoretically) had to know the base rules and your own powers to see how your specific character diverges from them. Again in theory, you should only have to know your own powers to play effectively, knowing that others may play by different rules than yours. As I see it, 4e was designed to play by the base rules and the exceptions pertaining to your own character, making it an exception-based system.

 

[TwoSix]

I find this goes for an untold amount of gaming topics. Folks like what they like, but have never thought about it on a conceptual level.

I mean, talking with other people who DO think about it is why I post here.

 

[Blue]

It just seems a lot to keep up with, needing to constantly reference rules books or printed character cards.

It should be absolutely zero for you to deal with. These are basic character abilities. If your players aren't 100% handling these then it's no wonder you have problems. That is a serious red flag. You should never have to think about these in the slightest, just allow when the player interrupts.

If this is even the slightest bit of brain power, then your player are doing it wrong unless they are newbies. In which case you don't get to complain because that's something you knew starting the campaign.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, talking with other people who DO think about it is why I post here.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of people who talk about things in gaming that haven't thought about it; they are at best aggressively defending their tastes without trying to really engage with why other people feel differently, since that requires at least accepting there might be some legitimacy to other views beyond a purely taste-based issue (since if everything is purely taste then most discussion about it is pointless). To talk about the benefits of effect based design meaningfully, I have to not only know what I like about it, I have to make some attempt to understand why people who prefer exception based design do prefer it, and at least accept theoretically that there are actual reasons for it.

 

[schneeland]

Well, people who are happy with exception based design are far less to even know the term in the first place. I've certainly seen people who clearly prefer exception based design (its a topic that comes up in the superhero RPG sphere reasonably often) but they won't call it that, and there's little sign they even know the term.

Irrespective of naming, exception-based design does have the advantage that it provides a means of mechanical character customisation (especially, if we understand it more broadly as anything that modifies or adds to the base rules). And I think that's something that appeals to many people.
In fact, even though I'm personally not exactly a fan of exception-based design (for me, it increases the cognitive load of a game much more than having a broader set of base rules), I do appreciate it when it comes in moderation as e.g. in Free League's Alien.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To spring-board off my "RPG Exhaustion" and "Character Creation App Dependency" threads, I'm thinking about something that adds to my frustration. The exception-based design present in games like D&D 4e, 13th Age, and Pathfinder 2e. Consider the following 1st-level fighter abilities - which are not limited usage (like a daily or encounter power). This is something the player (and GM) must keep up with constantly, along with likely 4+ other abilities ... all for a beginning character.

Spoiler: Tide of Iron - D&D 4e

Tide of Iron Fighter Attack 1​

After each swing, you use your shield to shove your foe backward, and then you surge ahead.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you can push the target 1 square if it is no larger than one size category larger than you. You can then shift 1 square into the space that the target left.
Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Spoiler: Skilled Intercept - 13th Age

Skilled Intercept​

Once per round as a free action, roll a normal save (11+) to intercept an enemy who is moving to attack one of your nearby allies. You can pop free from one enemy to move and intercept the attack. If you are engaged with more than one enemy, the others can take opportunity attacks against you.

The moving enemy makes its attack with you as a target instead. If you’re wearing heavy armor and the attack hits, you only take half damage.

Spoiler: Double Slice - PF2e

Double Slice[two-actions]Feat 1​

Fighter
Source Player Core pg. 140
Requirements You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand

---

You lash out at your foe with both weapons. Make two Strikes, one with each of your two melee weapons, each using your current multiple attack penalty. Both Strikes must have the same target. If the second Strike is made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait, it takes a –2 penalty.

If both attacks hit, combine their damage, and then add any other applicable effects from both weapons. You add any precision damage only once, to the attack of your choice. Combine the damage from both Strikes and apply resistances and weaknesses only once. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty.

It just seems a lot to keep up with, needing to constantly reference rules books or printed character cards.

While I've been doing this for years, I feel like my brain just "snapped."

What does 'too many things' have to do with exception-based design? They seem like unrelated things to me. D&D has always a ton of powers and whatnot. 4e tends to give them to every class but even old school editions have them.