Is D&D abstract or micromanaged?

[Kahuna Burger]

Specificly the combat. In some areas D&D combat is said to be abstract - what hit point loss really means, whether 3 attack rolls mean three indivudual attempts to hit, etc. On the other hand, some areas are very precise to the point (imo) of micromanagement - the whip does this amount of slashing damage but only if you have less than this amount of armor, or injury poisons which work if you hit, unless the amount of damage is less than damage reduction...

How do you think of D&D combat? Would you like it to be more or less abstract?

 

[Wyrm Pilot]

The combat mechanic is abstract. The fact that there are some specific things with a high level of detail (the aforementioned whip and poison, some spells, a few other weapons) is a separate consideration -- these things are not part of the combat system per se, and aren't even used in all campaigns (not necessarily changes in house rules, but in some campaigns no one ever uses a whip).

I think that the D&D combat system has reached about the right level of abstraction with the current rules edition; each edition so far has represented a substantial improvement over the previous (and before anyone complains about THAC0, consider that it was a "wow-cool" streamlining of the Attack Matrix and Weapons Vs. Armor Type Table). If you don't like how the core rules treat injected poisons vs. damage reduction, change it in your home game.

If you want micromanagement in combat, check out Rollmaster (sorry, "Rolemaster"). That game had a % table for critical hits to the left ear with a butterfly sword, fer cryin out loud.

Cheers,
Wyrm Pilot

 

[mmadsen]

As you note, D&D is an odd mixture of very, very abstract -- Is a hit a hit, and is damage damage? -- and very, very detailed, with lots of rules and things that need close tracking.

 

[kolikeos]

As you note, D&D is an odd mixture of very, very abstract -- Is a hit a hit, and is damage damage? -- and very, very detailed, with lots of rules and things that need close tracking.

QFT
I see HP, attacks, damage, etc. as abstracts but I see combat in D&D as being very micromanaging. You need to decide what to do each round of combat, with every option having different rules and outcomes, that's micromanagment. The numbers used to represent things in combat are abstract, let's take HP as an example, you might have 100 HP but that does not mean (at least to me) that you can survive a spear though your neck, HP can be seen as part of your overall skill at avoiding blows.
Some aspects are abstract and others are micromanaged.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Both.

I generally prefer a considerably greater degree of abstraction because I find it a) faster and b) more fun. The fiddliness of weapon damages, with relatively little mechanical impact and essentially no relation to reality, seems particularly silly.

If weapons were the difference between doing 400-500 and 600-700, but the 400-500 one hit twice (but armor-as-DR applied twice, too), it would be substantive enough to be an interesting decision. 1-2 damage either way and damage types that come into play once every dozen sessions (if that) don't exactly excite.

With that said, the poison thing seems more a case of poor templating rather than micromanagement: if it read 'when @@ deals damage with its @@ attack' it would be pretty obvious.

 

[jdrakeh]

As you note, D&D is an odd mixture of very, very abstract -- Is a hit a hit, and is damage damage? -- and very, very detailed, with lots of rules and things that need close tracking.

Agrreed. It's unusual in that respect, I think.

 

[sniffles]

It's both. As to whether I'd like it to be more or less abstract, I like less abstract combat - I cut my roleplaying teeth on RuneQuest and I like the hit point/armor point per body part mechanic - but I'm not sure I'd want D&D to follow suit. It's so detailed in other areas that sometimes it's a relief to have a fairly abstract way of resolving combat damage.

 

[WayneLigon]

Abstract. There are more abstract systems (Tunnels and Trolls is almost abstract to the point of non-existance), but many more system that micromanage a great deal more. The Harn system comes to mind;

From Jay Triplett's review

To quickly explain the system, both attacker and defender roll and compare their results on a table. Cross referencing the their results gives some kind of attack result. (Note: The attack and defense tables are small, but very easy to read, and only take up half a page.) Some examples of attack results:

Attacker gets a success and the defender blocks with a success: The result is a successful block.

Attacker gets a failure and the defender blocks with a success: Defenders Tactical Advantage (I will explain this later.)

Attacker gets a critical success and the defender dodges with a success: The attacker gets A1 (this means that the attack was successful and the attacker gets to roll one 1d6 in addition to the number of d6 damage his weapon allows).

Attacker fails and the defender counterstrikes with a critical success. The defender gets D2(the same as above, but the defender gets to roll damage on the attacker...2d6 extra damage dice in this instance)

If a successful strike was made by either attacker the next chart called the Aiming Zone (on the same page) is consulted. The aiming zone is divided into 3 columns. Attacker or defender can aim for the high body (which covers from skull to abdomen) or low body (forearm to foot) at -10 to their EML. If no aim was made, there is no modifier to EML and die results are spread out over the entire body (less likelihood you will strike the place you want to hit). The strike location is very specific allowing strikes to jaw, eye, mouth, neck, thorax, hip, upper arm, etc. Once the strike location has been determined the damage dice are rolled to determine the effective impact of the strike on the Injury table. Armor is subtracted from the damage before the effective impact table is consulted. Each strike location has a result for effective impacts of 1+, 5+, 9+, 13+, and 17+ damage. 1+ results always produce minor damage (bruises, cuts, stabs). 5+ results and 9+ results mostly produce serious damage (fracture, cuts, stabs) of different levels. 13+ results produce a few serious damage results to such areas as calf and forearm and a few kill results to such areas as skull and neck and the other results are mostly grievous (crushes, cuts, or stabs). 17+ results are either kill results or grievous results of different levels. The injury table also indicates when fumble, stumble, or amputation checks should be made. Injury results are listed with the first letter of the type of injury (minor, serious, grievous, kill), and the level of injury in numeric form (e.g. M1, S2, G4). All of this information is printed on one page (in color in the second edition, I have heard the third edition is black and white) with highlighted cells in the tables and clear fonts so that it is very easy to read and quick to consult.

Each new injury and its body part are recorded on the injury section of the combat profile on the back of the Character Sheet. For example a neck S2 injury is recorded, “neck S2”. Every time a character takes a new injury a 1d6 is rolled for each point of Universal Penalty. Universal Penalty is the combined total of wound levels and fatigue levels. If the roll exceeds endurance, the character is downed (unconscious) from bloodloss, pain, and injury. Each turn, the player makes a roll for his character to see if he regains consciousness (using the same number of dice). If a successful roll is made, he regains consciousness. After recovering consciousness a character makes one more shock roll. If he does not make this shock roll, he is in a state of shock, displaying symptoms of cold sweats, weakness, incoherence, etc. If his roll is successful, he remains coherent and can function normally with his Universal Penalty applied. Universal Penalty is a negative modifier made to any skill roll due to fatigue and injury. For more detail/ realism/ consistency the GM may restrict Universal Penalty to appropriate skill rolls, depending on the injury. A K result on effective impact indicates a mortal wound that may be fatal. Where one of these results is indicated the player rolls a number of die equal to the level of the injury. For instance if a K5 is noted, five dice are rolled. If this roll exceeds endurance, the character has died.

IE, you don't know how good you have it.

 

[Mycanid]

I also voted "Both".

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Abstract. There are more abstract systems (Tunnels and Trolls is almost abstract to the point of non-existance), but many more system that micromanage a great deal more. The Harn system comes to mind;
IE, you don't know how good you have it.

On the flip side, I would say Storyteller, BRP, Unisystem (classic and cinematic), Mutants & Masterminds, True20, Feng Shui, Fudge/Fate/Spirit of the Century, Wushu, Savage Worlds, and indeed, pretty much every game from the last decade with the exception of Riddle of Steel, perhaps Exalted and MAYBE, depending on your definition, Burning Wheel, is more abstract than D&D.

It's been many years since HarnMaster, and in today's RPG market, D&D is at the highest end of micromanagement. I would make the case that in play, though obviously not in character creation, even seasoned and crunchy GURPS and HERO are as or more abstract.

IE, if abstraction is "good" as you've defined it above, then D&D players have it pretty bad. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's certainly more valid than claiming D&D is abstract in comparison to a marginal game released over two decades ago.