Basic D&D & granularity?

[Philotomy Jurament]

So, I ran the idea of playing Basic D&D past my group this past week. They said they didn't like the idea because the game doesn't have enough "granularity" as compared to subsequent editions. I take that to mean it doesn't have enough options for the players (more cynically, it's not munchkin enough). Can anyone clear up the definition for me?

Bah. I'd much rather have a coarse granularity than a fine granularity. A fine-grained system defines all sorts of skills and abilities (e.g. feats) that you must have in order to perform that action. Fine grained is "lots of defined options you pick from." A coarse-grained system gives you the freedom to allow those skills and abilities based on the DM's judgment and the character's background (or class). Coarse-grained is broad and general, and relies much more on DM and player judgment than on rulebooks and lists.

For example, say you want to create a fighter-type character. You want him to be a from a noble family, maybe a squire or a knight in training. In a fine-grained system, you'd select an appropriate class (like Fighter), pick skills and abilities like riding, heraldry, diplomacy, courtly manners, knowledge of politics, maybe some local history, maybe some leadership abilities, maybe some fighter-type feats like power attack or mounted combat feats, maybe some weapon focus/specialization feats, et cetera. Chances are you won't be able to pick all of this stuff, and will have to leave some of it out.

In the coarse-grained system, you'd pick a class (like Fighter), define your background, and choose some appropriate weapons.

Now, during play, let's say you want to swing really hard, giving up some accuracy for the sake of extra damage. With a fine grained system, the DM says "Do you have power attack?" Don't have it? Can't do it. With a coarse grained system, this is up to the DM's judgment. You can still do stuff like power attack under a coarse grained system -- it's not like you lose the possibility because there're no feats in the system. It's just that the players and the DM decide if you can do it, rather than the rulebook and your character "build."

How about recognizing the coat-of-arms of some knight guarding a bridge? In the fine-grained system, the DM says "have knowledge of heraldry?" Don't have it? Too bad -- can't use that one untrained. You're out of luck, even though your character's background indicates he probably *should* have it (just didn't have enough skill points!). In a coarse grained system, the DM says, "Hmmm, you're a noble, make an Int check at such-and-such difficulty to see if you recognize him." Or maybe just, "Oh yes, you recognize him right away. It's Sir Jousts-A-Lot, the champion of last fall's tournament." [Here, apologists for fine-grained systems will point out that you can do the same thing with the fine-grained system. Yes, you can, but you just cheapened the value of the skill for all those PCs that bought it. What's the point in spending the points on it if you don't really need it in play? My response is that you don't need it, so why not use a coarse-grained system, since you're playing that way, anyway, apparently?]

Coarse-grained doesn't limit players; it empowers them. And it empowers the DM to rule on situations based on his common sense and judgment. He's much more of a judge and less of a rule-looker-upper, bound to the book.

There are pros and cons each way, I suppose, and there's no accounting for taste, but give me the coarse-grained system, any day. As a DM, I like the freedom to exercise my judgment. As a player, I like the flexibility and lack of constraints -- my character has the skills and abilities that make sense for him, and isn't shoehorned into a smaller box by the rules. I like rules -- you need them to play -- I just don't like a whole bunch of them when they're not necessary, IMO.

My $0.02, for what it's worth.

 

[Glyfair]

A coarse-grained system gives you the freedom to allow those skills and abilities based on the DM judgment and the character's background (or class).

Which is the disadvantage of a coarse-grained system, as well. If you don't have a good DM, or a DM whose tastes run different from yours, then you won't enjoy yourself as much. You are putting a lot of your character development in his hands.

Even the best GMs can have issues in certain areas. I've played under some DMs that are considered to great DMs by a large number of people. However, there is a tendancy to give advantages to certain players over others at times (the "improvisational actor" players get a huge amount of spotlight time by one GM, but at the expense of the other PCs, for example).

A lot of people tend to assume you'll have a great GM. Unfortunately, in practice, it doesn't happen as often as some of the discussions you'll see here. Sure, you want to avoid the poor GMs, unless you have no other choice. However, sometimes you'll do well with the average GMs, or good GMs, as long as you can keep a certain amount of control over your characters.

If you have a great GM, it rarely matters what system you play. However, system plays a large deal the further down the totem pole you go (and the further from your playstyle tastes the GM lies).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Which is the disadvantage of a coarse-grained system, as well. If you don't have a good DM, or a DM whose tastes run different from yours, then you won't enjoy yourself as much.

To some degree, yes, that is so -- a coarse grained system allows a good DM to really shine, and it emphasizes the flaws of a poor DM. However, I think another benefit of a coarse-grained system is that it helps DMs improve, because the DM is exercising those "DMing muscles" and making judgment calls.

The taste issue applies to just about any system, IMO; if your tastes differ, you're not going to have as much fun, no matter what the system.

You are putting a lot of your character development in his hands.

I wouldn't say "development," because it's the player who directs who is character is. The DM just makes the final call on exactly how that background, characterization, and direction applies, rules-wise.

I think d20 players, in particular, do exceptionally well when they try coarse-grained systems, because both players and DMs have a lot of experience and examples of how the rules can be tweaked (e.g. power attack, combat expertise, et cetera). When you combine that experience with the freedom to apply those things where they best enhance play (the story line, the character, etc), rather than only where the book allows it, you end up with a better game, IMO.

 

[TimSmith]

To some degree, yes, that is so -- a coarse grained system allows a good DM to really shine, and it emphasizes the flaws of a poor DM. However, I think another benefit of a coarse-grained system is that it helps DMs improve, because the DM is exercising those "DMing muscles" and making judgment calls.

The taste issue applies to just about any system, IMO; if your tastes differ, you're not going to have as much fun, no matter what the system.

I wouldn't say "development," because it's the player who directs who is character is. The DM just makes the final call on exactly how that background, characterization, and direction applies, rules-wise.

I think d20 players, in particular, do exceptionally well when they try coarse-grained systems, because both players and DMs have a lot of experience and examples of how the rules can be tweaked (e.g. power attack, combat expertise, et cetera). When you combine that experience with the freedom to apply those things where they best enhance play (the story line, the character, etc), rather than only where the book allows it, you end up with a better game, IMO.

Hmm, I think you may have put your finger on the reasons for my occasional lingering unease over 3.5. I like it but at the same time I often feel like I am constrained by the rules or perhaps forced to look up certain mechanics too much, at least compared to older D&D editions. Its harder to wing things or design things quickly due to the necessity for "fine granules." And harder to "get away with" judgement calls or situational aesthetic tweaks which are outside or contrary to the RAW, simply because the RAW is so fine grained.

You are better than a shrink and your therapy is free! Kudos