PDA

View Full Version : Is D&D mundane too "abstract"?



Orzel
2010-05-28, 05:33 AM
1) Get into range/right situation.
2) Roll d20, add X, then check.
3) Roll Y if you succeed.

Skills and weapons is basically just this. Since X is just a sum of easily modified numbers and Y is a few dice rolls and a SOEMN; if that's all you got, you can easily be replaced, replicated, or ignored. The older editions was full of this. 4E "fixed" this by making almost every into 123 and the SOEMN harder to modify. TOB, something many love, jammed many more steps into the process.

But you think if D&D mundane (or even all of it) had more disconnected steps by default, it would be better?

Eldan
2010-05-28, 05:58 AM
Not necessarily. Combats would be longer. More steps doesn't have to mean more realistic, more fun or more effective. And "better" can mean any of those, depending on who you ask.

Yora
2010-05-28, 06:23 AM
I have to say I don't understand what's the question here.
What's D&D mundane?

Katana_Geldar
2010-05-28, 07:15 AM
I have to say I don't understand what's the question here.
What's D&D mundane?

As opposed to D&D Exciting or D&D Insanely Awesome.

Eldan
2010-05-28, 07:16 AM
I assume he means "without magic, psionics, incarnum, shadow magic etc. etc."

So, fighters without equipment, basically.

nedz
2010-05-28, 07:40 AM
Assuming I understand this thread:

Its a skirmish wargame system originally called chainmail.
skirmish because 1 figure = 1 person rather than 1 figure = x people.
There are a whole varienty of such systems out there, which vary in realism versus symplicity. This one is quite simple.

Satyr
2010-05-28, 08:10 AM
D&D is just per se too superficial and abstract. It doesn't matter if you include supernatural means. Those only make the game more complex (and convoluted) but barely add any more depth to it.

I think that D&D suffers from a major paradox in its rules. There is a major problem with D&D (for me at least) and that is the fundamental conflict within the intention and implementation of the rules.

D&D is a roleplaying game that is very strongly focused on combat, the 4th edition even more so than its progenitors. Combats and how they are managed play a major or even the major role within the game and due to the class mechanisms, the quality of a character within the system bases only solely on how much they can contribute in a conflict. Other elements of a roleplaying game - such as method acting, alternative ways of conflict resoltuion, moral dilemmas or character development (not to mention verisimulitude) play only a secondary role or are handwaved completely.

Now, for such a central element the rules for combats are surprisingly abstract (and in some points plainly not well made). The number of options is small and repetitive. Tactical motives or combat strategies play only a minor role (one could argue that the logistics of the character creation/ optimisation are meant to replace this. The result is debatable). The only form of higher versatility is magic, while direct combat variability is minimal, sometimes to a very frustrating degree when compared to other games.

This is a major paradox as the rule implementation and their intention are going in completely opposite directions. While the neglection of other game elements besides combat is a problem of its own, the overtly abstract and rather limited implementation of the major element is a highly questionable idea.

Like almost everything, abstraction is not a question with two alternatives, but a sliding scale. The problem is not that the game is abstract. That would indeed be a stupid assumption. The problem is the amount of abstraction and the point where the game becomes so abstract that it becomes detached from the narrative it represents and, even worse, overtly abstract games tend to sacrifice personal involvement for the characters.

According to my experiences, the more abstract and less plausible a game becomes, the less intuitive it is - because the relation to the expectations and knowledge of the players are lost. Because we all know that nothing helps the dramatic development of the game as much as players who bury their hands in their palms because the game feels ridiculously stupid or detached from reality, right?
Again a question of versimilitude.

Gnaeus
2010-05-28, 08:34 AM
The problem is the amount of abstraction and the point where the game becomes so abstract that it becomes detached from the narrative it represents and, even worse, overtly abstract games tend to sacrifice personal involvement for the characters.

According to my experiences, the more abstract and less plausible a game becomes, the less intuitive it is - because the relation to the expectations and knowledge of the players are lost. Because we all know that nothing helps the dramatic development of the game as much as players who bury their hands in their palms because the game feels ridiculously stupid or detached from reality, right?
Again a question of versimilitude.

Wrong.

Realistic combat can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the story you want to tell. Take, for example, Rolemaster. Theres a gritty game. Low level mooks can absolutely wipe out skilled pcs with just a couple of good critical hit rolls, and healing is very difficult. It is "realistic" in the sense that every single weapon is different and the critical hit table rewards you with different results when you hit someone with a sword or a club. Fun game, I like it.

So there was one rolemaster game I played in. We all spent about 2 hours making characters (we were familiar with the system so it went fast.). About 5 minutes into play, we enter the gatehouse of the ruined castle we were exploring. A goblin drops some boiling water through a murder hole. Criticals are rolled (Heat and steam criticals!). Every PC winds up either dead, dying or badly crippled for months. Realistic? Yes. Good for narrative or player enjoyment? NO. Game ended. We played a boardgame instead.

D&D (once you reach level 4-7) is a superhero game in fantasy clothing. Realism is BAD for that narrative, because in real combat, people (here meaning PCs) die a lot. Imagine a run of X-Men or Avengers where a major protagonist gets killed or crippled by a thug in every single combat. That is bad for the narrative of that genre. D&D is like Howard's Conan, or Burroughs' Mars. The Epic Hero (epic here used to indicate narrative style, not 3.5 character level) can only be threatened by epic threats, some guards with swords just can't get there. If the hero is wounded, it will be a setback (like hit point loss) not a catastrophe (like a critical hit where your arm gets cut off and you bleed to death in 3 rounds).

The random chance in D&D is included to create the threat of failure, even possible death in OCCASIONAL encounters, but the assumed narrative of the game is ("Heroes enter peril. Heroes triumph. Heroes are rewarded and become more powerful so that they can face something more perilous. Repeat until bored or epic"). That is not realistic. If that isn't the story you want to tell, then indeed maybe a different system is for you.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 08:54 AM
D&D has always been about Heroic PCs in heroic situations. Of course it's abstract and streamlined - in a roleplaying game the mechanics are less important than the style. AD&D, first edition, was not very streamlined and the rules were not very consistent. They worked well enough, but 3.5 has done a huge favor in simplifying things in general and speeding up combat in particular.

Honestly, how realistic is a system where anyone can take 15 or 20 sword cuts and not collapse from blood loss long before the 20th round of combat? Upper level play is just like this - a barbarian or fighter with a massive hit point reserve can fight on and on until he runs out of hit points. There are many systems out there that don't increase a character's hit points as they gain experience. Most of these systems also have fairly dangerous combat systems even without ICE's deadly crit tables. In fact, try out a game called Living Steel - all of the weapon damage tables are based on ballistics research and combat medical information. That system is slow, cumbersome, and usually causes much re-rolling of characters.

What it comes down to is this; you want fun or you want real? Some people feel that more real is more fun. Some would rather use combat as color for their intense role play. Find the happy ground for your group and have fun.

nedz
2010-05-28, 08:55 AM
In general the more complex and realistic the game system is, the lower the level of gameplay. The simpler the system, the faster the resolution and the better the gameplay. It is always a balancing act, and different systems take different paths.
What also seems to have been brought into this debate is another quality of game systems. D&D is an Heroic game: which is why arrows are a minor irritant rather than a risk of fatality. Gnaeus's description of Rolemaster is an example of what can happen in non heroic systems.
There are plenty of systems out there and you pays your money and takes your choice.

Taelas
2010-05-28, 08:59 AM
What do you mean by "SOEMN"?

Orzel
2010-05-28, 09:42 AM
Sum of easily modified numbers. There's a million ways to get a high hit/damage/etc. And you just add them together.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-05-28, 09:44 AM
in terms of hit points and reality i generally choose to look at damage in terms of ratios. . .

A power character hits another powerful character for 50 somthing hit points. Rather than say wow you took enough damage to kill a villiage of commoners and are still up and fighting, its more like. wow you took 1/3rd of your total capacity to take damage. . . so like . . . a bad gut wound. the guy dealing the damage on the other hand delt a blow that could have decapitated every villiager in range, he's not fighting a villager though he's fighting a skilled warrior who was able to manuever in such a way that he could avoid such devestating damage and instead took only the gut wound.

i try not to think in terms of exact comparisons by the numbers but by ratios. it makes the game both more theatric and a little more realistic. too many people think only about the numbers and not about the story or the visuals their adventure should be puting forth.

blaming the system is just being uncreative. any system can work if its presented right. the easier ones are generaly the best because you dont have to spend to much time working on numbers and can instead focus on the story. if your worried more about numbers than story you should go play risk or an mmo

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 09:55 AM
in terms of hit points and reality i generally choose to look at damage in terms of ratios. . .

A power character hits another powerful character for 50 somthing hit points. Rather than say wow you took enough damage to kill a villiage of commoners and are still up and fighting, its more like. wow you took 1/3rd of your total capacity to take damage. . . so like . . . a bad gut wound. the guy dealing the damage on the other hand delt a blow that could have decapitated every villiager in range, he's not fighting a villager though he's fighting a skilled warrior who was able to manuever in such a way that he could avoid such devestating damage and instead took only the gut wound.


Yes, yes, we understand the Gary Gygax hit point explaination. The point is not that this is bad, just that there are other ways to do it. In D&D, the system uses increased hit points to help represent combat prowess. This is fine. Other systems simply increase your chances to hit to represent prowess while enabling you to purchase better gear for defense. Bonuses for the appropriate skills, etc, are factored in but you don't have this same representation of your ability to deflect or avoid "real" harm that D&D uses.

I don't think any of them is "better" than another, as long as the system as a whole hangs together well. I like d20 3.5 because it's fairly quick and stylized without losing too much detail. Would having location-based damage modifiers or critical effects make the game better for your group? If yes, then add them as house rules. If not, don't. I've done it both ways with 3.x and they can both be fun.

AstralFire
2010-05-28, 10:00 AM
I would argue that core D&D 3 mundane is far too abstract given the complexity that goes into magic. That is, of course, why ToB and 4E came about.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 10:43 AM
I would argue that core D&D 3 mundane is far too abstract given the complexity that goes into magic. That is, of course, why ToB and 4E came about.

Not a fan of 4E. Too much like World of Warcraft's talent trees. That and the SRD is based on the new SGL, which pretty much makes it a close system as opposed to the OGL which makes it an open system. Guess they felt they weren't making enough money with the OGL....

AstralFire
2010-05-28, 10:47 AM
Not a fan of 4E. Too much like World of Warcraft's talent trees. That and the SRD is based on the new SGL, which pretty much makes it a close system as opposed to the OGL which makes it an open system. Guess they felt they weren't making enough money with the OGL....

Too much like /what/.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Y'know what, I'm not going to bother. I'm done. World of Warcraft has apparently created, innovated, or significantly improved such to trademark, the very idea of character progression trees.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 10:59 AM
I've read through it and I'm not impressed. I just don't like the look of the system. I played WoW for years before 4E came out, and the first thing I thought was man - now it's in D&D, the last bastion has fallen.

I haven't played it yet, and I'm sure that it could be tons of fun with a good DM. I just don't care for the way the system looks. I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive, so I'm biased. Notice I didn't say I'm right.... I just feel that 4E doesn't do justice to its origins.

AstralFire
2010-05-28, 11:03 AM
I don't care if you dislike WoW or 4E if you like them. I care that the specific accusation makes little sense. 3E, with its greater emphasis on feat trees that eventually grant you a new ability outright, more strongly resembles WoW talent trees - to the extent that a pineapple and a pancake bear more resemblance to one another than they do to an asteroid.

Gnaeus
2010-05-28, 11:04 AM
I've read through it and I'm not impressed. I just don't like the look of the system. I played WoW for years before 4E came out, and the first thing I thought was man - now it's in D&D, the last bastion has fallen.

I haven't played it yet, and I'm sure that it could be tons of fun with a good DM. I just don't care for the way the system looks. I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive, so I'm biased. Notice I didn't say I'm right.... I just feel that 4E doesn't do justice to its origins.

While I agree with everything you say, could we please discuss abstraction v. realism or gaming styles in 3.5 or roleplaying games in general instead of starting another pointless edition thread?

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 11:25 AM
Detail can always be added where it's desired. Basically, it's what house rules are for. My friends and I added details for weapon speed as a modifier to initiative in a campaign we played 12 years ago - not long before 3.0 was released. When 3.0 came out we were slightly dismayed - D&D was being dumbed down again. One of my friends decided to take the plunge and we found that the smoother combat was a pleasant surprise.

Some of us play strategy games like Squad Leader, which is very detailed. Some of us actually fence or fight and have a good feel for how combat should progress. Sometimes we fiddle with the system to accomodate. Usually we use our real life experience and our knowledge of other systems to help resolve in-game situations in a more detailed way than the rules present. For us, this has worked well. It keeps most combat smooth and quick without making it too much like a game of High-Low.

Xallace
2010-05-28, 11:28 AM
Y'know what, I'm not going to bother. I'm done. World of Warcraft has apparently created, innovated, or significantly improved such to trademark, the very idea of character progression trees.

Huh. I like that response.
And hey, those 'round my parts who played 2E claimed 3E was "too much like Diablo." I personally haven't played Diablo or World of Warcraft, but maybe there's just this... I don't want to say "zeitgeist," but feel of RPGs around the same era. Like they're progressing or something.


Anyway, every table-top RPG needs some amount of abstraction. Simple die rolls make it quick, and we can fill in the fun details of what each roll actually meant after the resolution.

I don't feel like ToB added too many extra steps. In fact, the only extra step I can think of was deciding which maneuver to use that round. Declare which maneuver I use, roll a die or two, compare results. Sounds about right for me.

ChrisFortyTwo
2010-05-28, 11:32 AM
I think that D&D suffers from a major paradox in its rules. There is a major problem with D&D (for me at least) and that is the fundamental conflict within the intention and implementation of the rules.

D&D is a roleplaying game that is very strongly focused on combat, the 4th edition even more so than its progenitors. Combats and how they are managed play a major or even the major role within the game and due to the class mechanisms, the quality of a character within the system bases only solely on how much they can contribute in a conflict. Other elements of a roleplaying game - such as method acting, alternative ways of conflict resoltuion, moral dilemmas or character development (not to mention verisimulitude) play only a secondary role or are handwaved completely.


You say that the conflict is between the intention and the implementation of rules. The intention of the rules for 3.0 were clearly intentioned for roleplaying. The designers were trying to get away from "dungeon crawl". They added new character archetypes, tried to expand feats and skills into non-combat styles, while still leaving the stuff for combat in.

The problem is not that the rules handwaved character development, moral dilemma and conflict resolution. The problem is that the players handwaved them. They broke the game, complained about all of the "weak" feats, and "sub-optimal choices" that players make. Players would make fun of other players for choosing feats that were only useful out of combat, because it was the kind of thing they would simply argue with the DM about until they got their way.

So, to fix the "broken" parts of the game, WoTC released 3.5, and eventually 4, because that's what the players wanted - a combat system. Honestly, the best games I have played in (and I've played in many games and many systems) have had limited dice rolling and rules, but used them for the telling of the story. Roleplaying, thought, and character development were emphasized. It was all within the context of the rules, but it wasn't about the rules. Some of us (including me), had well-optimized characters, without broken or weak feats.

The combat system can take two forms. The first form is:
DM: Frank, it' your turn.
Fighter Frank: [moves mini one space to set up flank] I attack. 26 to hit. 19 damage.
DM: You hit it for 9. Wally
Wizard Wally: Fireball [positions wire fireball . DC 19. 57 points.
DM: You realize it's immune to fire - no effect.
...

It's boring, it's abstract, it's exactly what you described earlier. Number crunching, and optimization.

The other form is:
DM: Ok, Frank, the monster is focused on Rogue Rich, but it is still defending against you. What do you do?
FF: I set up a flank and run my greatsword into it. [rolls dice] 26 to hit, 19 dmg
DM: It gives you a pained glare as you remove your sword, and you notice that its muscles don't seem to tear as easily as you'd expect - 9 damage.
Wally, you're a little ways away.
WW: I cast fireball so that it doesn't hit Frank or Rich. 57 points.
DM: The creature laughs as the flames lick around it's skin without even singing it.
...

Same characers, same actions, same numbers, but this time the abstraction is there to keep things moving and resolve the action. You don't need additional rules, decisions, and dice rolls to add excitement to the game, you need to decide to play the game for what it is - roleplaying.

In response to the joke earlier:

What's D&D mundane?

As opposed to D&D Exciting or D&D Insanely Awesome.

I think you have been playing a little too much D&D mundane. Try D&D Exciting, or D&D Insanely Awesome some time. It takes a little more work, and you might get some resistance from other players and the DM, but if you encourage that level of roleplaying, the abstraction makes sense. It takes you away from the drudgery of dice, and puts you in the enjoyment of roleplaying.

Theodoxus
2010-05-28, 11:38 AM
Roleplaying games, by their very nature, have to be abstract. Even the most 'realistic' have very little to do with reality. Time is expanded (a 6 second period of time in game can last hours in reality) or contracted (a two week voyage across the sea in game takes exactly as long in reality as to say 'a two week voyage across the sea). Neither is realistic.

Fight mechanics are also abstracted concepts that have no base in reality. How many hit points are in your pinky? When you break it playing baseball, how many hit points did you lose? How long will it take to gain them back? Do fatter people have more hit points? Why would a 3" knife kill a skinny person being stabbed in the chest but not a fatter person due to layers of fat - if they don't have more hit points? Taking that reality, one quickly sees the whole abstraction built into gaming.

Beyond that, how incredibly boring would a realistic game actually be? Taking time issues aside, you're still dealing with biology (your character will get hungry, thirsty and need to void itself in a very banal way), society (pretty much anything anyone does in an action sequence of a game is against the rules of modern society - and since we're talking realism here, there's no magic, no gods, no secret rogue organizations...) and physics (I mentioned that whole lack of magic thing. Also, there wouldn't be starships or laserswords or forcefields or little green men from outerspace.

All those neat little things are abstractions - mostly from someone's imagination.

Can we make a game more 'realistic'? Sure. You could force biology onto your characters. You could make games far more lethal by defining hit points more rationally. You could even come up with physical laws that magic (or high tech) would have to follow too - but again, it goes back to - where's the fun in that?

I agree I don't want to get into an edition war - but 4th Ed specifically, moved from the realm of imagination to Magic the Gathering meets Computer RPGs. You have very specific abilities that dictate how you can play your character. The rules are rigid - made expressly to be interpreted by a computer code. You can do X, because your power card says you can. You can't do Y, because that's reserved for Class B, and you're playing Class A.

Funnily enough, I think 4th Ed moves further from realism. The abstractions are more codified, so imagination is stymied - but there's nothing particularly realistic about it either.

AstralFire
2010-05-28, 11:41 AM
Roleplaying is something wholly independent of the mechanics for all editions of D&D. Games like Spirit of the Century, etc, are the only ones which directly incorporate roleplaying into the mechanics. You're making a severe mistake if you blame a lack of roleplaying on the complexity or simplicity of the rules. How much fun you have with the rules, certainly, allows you more motivation to be a good roleplayer - and that is tied to complexity or simplicity. But which people prefer is an independent variable.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 11:42 AM
I don't want to say "zeitgeist,"

You did! You should use it more. Where appropriate, at least.

WoW got it's talent trees from 3.0 - so I don't feel bad about that ;p Just look at pub dates.

Just like Battletech took 90% of its art from Robotech and a few other mainstream anime at the time. You want some detail? Battletech had quite a bit.

Anyway - main thing is that the abstraction has to work for you and your group. Guess that's why some people prefer one system over another - that abstraction works best for them.

ChrisFortyTwo
2010-05-28, 11:45 AM
I haven't played it yet, and I'm sure that it could be tons of fun with a good DM. I just don't care for the way the system looks. I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive, so I'm biased. Notice I didn't say I'm right.... I just feel that 4E doesn't do justice to its origins.

I love it when someone makes terrible arguments like this. "I haven't played it yet. I don't care for...[how] it looks." If you haven't played it, you have a limited basis for your claims - why make them?

Also, the statement "notice I didn't say I'm right". That's just ridiculous. Since when do people verify their own claims? When you make a statement, you imply that it is your belief. To do otherwise is trolling, and that's against the forum rules.

Also, quit making assumptions about demographics. It would be impossible for you to have been playing longer than some of us have been alive, because the game simply isn't that old.

AstralFire
2010-05-28, 11:47 AM
WoW got it's talent trees from 3.0 - so I don't feel bad about that ;p Just look at pub dates.

You missed my point. If you don't like 4E, fine, but to complain that one of its subsystems became 'like WoW' when it actually moved away further from the resemblances that 3E had makes no sense. (Also, WoW probably got it from Diablo).

I am an excellent roleplayer; I say that with no intent to boast, it is a pure statement of fact. 3E, 4E, Star Wars Saga, freeform, my own very rules light system - it doesn't make a whit of difference to me, I kick literary ass. Roleplaying is largely a function of the roleplayer, and not of the system (things like Spirit of the Century aside - it is very different from the D&D line).

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 11:59 AM
I am an excellent roleplayer; I say that with no intent to boast, it is a pure statement of fact. 3E, 4E, Star Wars Saga, freeform, my own very rules light system - it doesn't make a whit of difference to me, I kick literary ass. Roleplaying is largely a function of the roleplayer, and not of the system (things like Spirit of the Century aside - it is very different from the D&D line).

I wouldn't dream of arguing any of that.

My point - as far as the original question - is that the roleplay vs. abstraction isn't really a vs. at all. If the system works for your group, then it's fine. If you need more detail, use some sort of critical hit table for flavor, or tweak things as needed. If you want less detail, adapt it to your tastes.

Or, pick a different system. This is a pain if you've invested piles of cash already.

AstralFire
2010-05-28, 12:01 PM
My second paragraph is directed to Theodoxus.

And I'll add this little thought - sometimes, restriction is conducive to imagination. It gives it focus, clarity, and appreciation for those times when you have more freedom than others.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-28, 12:06 PM
Sure - I tend to stick close to the rules, or to the spirit of the rule when the letter is to vague. Helps keep my players from getting too silly in some cases but in most it gives them a clear idea of what is possible and how to do it within the rules.

What gets to me is when my players do something that is completely reasonable that ends up throwing the balance out the window. That's when I know there's a problem with my version of the abstraction.