Is D&D abstract or micromanaged?

[Ian O'Rourke]

D&D is a fantastic exercise in micromanaged abstraction.

 

[Jer]

How do you think of D&D combat?

By RAW, it's both, I think. And it's mainly due to the focus on using miniatures in combat more than anything else. Almost every single move during combat in D&D is a resource management problem -- you have so many squares to move, how will you spend them? You have so many hit points left, how will you risk them? You have so many spells left, are you going to cast one here? You have so many crossbow bolts left, is it time to break out the sword? It gets more and more apparent with the power level of the characters/monsters involved, but combat is a tactical battle mixed with a lot of resource management.

But, the physical simulation of what is going on is very abstract. No wounding, no real fatigue from battle, just simple hit point tallies that combine karma and health into one score. Defense bonuses represent weapons missing you completely as well as weapons clanging off your armor all in one score. Aptitude with weapons is wrapped up in a single "base attack bonus" number and a few class abilities. The physical simulation of combat is very abstract.

Abstract and micromanaging may not really be at opposite ends of a continous spectrum here. I'll need to think for a bit to see if I can come up with a game that has a strong concrete physical simulation of combat but doesn't require micromanaging -- the only one I can come up with is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edtition, but I'm not sure if that one is actually less micromanaging or not (we may have been ignoring rules to keep the action moving, I'd have to check).

Would you like it to be more or less abstract?

I tend to like to run my RP games more abstract, so when my players are agreeable (as in my current game), I run the game with severely reduced emphasis on miniatures in combat. Movement, flanking, ranges and other factors are by judgement call, rather than by grid.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Abstract and micromanaging may not really be at opposite ends of a continous spectrum here. I'll need to think for a bit to see if I can come up with a game that has a strong concrete physical simulation of combat but doesn't require micromanaging -- the only one I can come up with is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edtition, but I'm not sure if that one is actually less micromanaging or not (we may have been ignoring rules to keep the action moving, I'd have to check).

The aforementioned Burning Wheel system may qualify. It's almost certainly less micromanaging than D&D, although whether it's less complicated or not depends largely on how well you grasp an RPG very far from the norm in many respects. It's simpler overall, but that's in large part because there's less CONTENT.

I do agree that 'abstract' and 'micromanaging' are not at all at opposite ends of the spectrum. The tabletop wargames of the '70s, for example, have a much greater degree of abstraction than D&D (by and large, they take place on a scale well above individual combatants), but many are extremely complex.

The idea that abstraction and micromanagement are at loggerheads comes, I think, from '80s niche RPGs like HarnMaster, where more and more rules were added in an effort to conform more closely to 'realism' - often with chippy shots at AD&D's 'unrealistic' system. Nowadays, you're more likely to see niche RPGs like Wushu that strip rules away (in Wushu's case to be explicitly less realistic, but others do this to let the ever-uncommon common sense, and the slightly more common shared expectations, define realism) - often with chippy shots at D&D 3.0's 'clunky' system.

 

[Slife]

Yes.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

The abstract nature of D&D's combat system is what turned me to GURPS. Because it is so abstract, all too often a player's planning is for naught because of the result of the dice roll.

For example,

If a players is playing a rogue, and he has been stalking his target, watching their every move, hides in the corner of the room and waits for the target to get sleepy, sneaks up behind them, and then drives a knife into the base of the unfortunate soul's skull...it's what? A few extra d6's?

He gets the EXACT same result if he just flanks Joe Shmoe in a random encounter.

And that just sucks.

The abstract nature of the game often defies logic* and renders a lot of creative player decisions moot as I pointed out with the sneak attack example.

* Try explaining why a cure light wounds potions heals a 1st level character from the brink of death, but can't do squat for a 20th level character.

 

[Slife]

T
The abstract nature of the game often defies logic* and renders a lot of creative player decisions moot as I pointed out with the sneak attack example.

* Try explaining why a cure light wounds potions heals a 1st level character from the brink of death, but can't do squat for a 20th level character.

Because the 1st level character is less injured than the 20th level character.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

A 1st level character takes 6 points of damage and is dropped to -1. He takes a cure light wounds potions and returns to 5 hit points. Perfect health.

A 20th level character takes 160 points of damage and is dropped to -1. He takes a cure light wounds potions and returns to 5 hit points. He is a LONG way from perfect health. Why can't a single cure light wounds potion bring him from unconsciousness to full health like it could a year ago? Now that same potion has about the same effectiveness as a bottle of Gatoraid.

This does not compute.

And even if there is a way to explain it, it is not at all intuitive.

At the very least, a lot of things should work on fractions. If a CLW potions healed 30%(?) of total health instead of a fixed number, it would make more sense.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The abstract nature of the game often defies logic* and renders a lot of creative player decisions moot as I pointed out with the sneak attack example.

The first part of your statement is just plain wrong. The abstract nature of the game renders impossible logical extrapolation from the first principles of your perception of what is 'realistic.' If you logically extrapolate from different first principles, you can get logical results from D&D's abstract rules.

As to the creative decisions, I somewhat agree. That's primarily a function of randomness, however, and a lack of player narrative control. If GURPS is better, it's only better because it uses a less random bell curve die mechanic.

I don't think your example is terribly well-chosen, however. The GM can always rule a target helpless as well as flat-footed if the target is getting sleepy, and in any case 'a few extra d6' should put paid to any character who has so little narrative weight as to get mooked in the manner you describe. A rogue being unable to effortlessly kill your campaign's equivalent of Darth Vader, Sephiroth, Saruman, Luca Blight or Xaltotun in his sleep is a feature, not a bug - from the first principles I reason from, which are narrative.

* Try explaining why a cure light wounds potions heals a 1st level character from the brink of death, but can't do squat for a 20th level character.

Because the 20th level character has developed a tolerance for curative magic over a bloody and oft-cured career. Much as a java junkie won't get a buzz from a single Red Bull, whereas someone who's never touched caffiene will be jolted by a single Jolt Cola.
Because in addition to avoiding injuries, the 20th level character can also take more physical punishment. Much as a champion boxer can endure an amazing amount of blows without going down due to both physical toughness and training.
Because the 20th level character has accrued more life force in the zero-sum game that is the energistic transfer we call "experience points," and thus requires a greater infusion of artificial positive energy in the form of a potion to return to his full potential.
Because the 20th level character's cosmic badassitude completely emasculates the potion and leaves it all but impotent.

All four of those are potentially logical answers to your question, depending on the first principles you ground your campaign in.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

The first part of your statement is just plain wrong. The abstract nature of the game renders impossible logical extrapolation from the first principles of your perception of what is 'realistic.' If you logically extrapolate from different first principles, you can get logical results from D&D's abstract rules.

As to the creative decisions, I somewhat agree. That's primarily a function of randomness, however, and a lack of player narrative control. If GURPS is better, it's only better because it uses a less random bell curve die mechanic.

I don't think your example is terribly well-chosen, however. The GM can always rule a target helpless as well as flat-footed if the target is getting sleepy, and in any case 'a few extra d6' should put paid to any character who has so little narrative weight as to get mooked in the manner you describe. A rogue being unable to effortlessly kill your campaign's equivalent of Darth Vader, Sephiroth, Saruman, Luca Blight or Xaltotun in his sleep is a feature, not a bug - from the first principles I reason from, which are narrative.



Because the 20th level character has developed a tolerance for curative magic over a bloody and oft-cured career. Much as a java junkie won't get a buzz from a single Red Bull, whereas someone who's never touched caffiene will be jolted by a single Jolt Cola.
Because in addition to avoiding injuries, the 20th level character can also take more physical punishment. Much as a champion boxer can endure an amazing amount of blows without going down due to both physical toughness and training.
Because the 20th level character has accrued more life force in the zero-sum game that is the energistic transfer we call "experience points," and thus requires a greater infusion of artificial positive energy in the form of a potion to return to his full potential.
Because the 20th level character's cosmic badassitude completely emasculates the potion and leaves it all but impotent.

All four of those are potentially logical answers to your question, depending on the first principles you ground your campaign in.

"And even if there is a way to explain it, it is not at all intuitive."

So when a player says "This doesn't make sense.", I should tell him/her to forget everything they know about reality and change their "first principles"?

No. I don't think so. The new player has to have a starting point from which to base their perceptions. That starting point would most logically be reality as we know it, then diverge from there with magic, monsters, etc.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

"And even if there is a way to explain it, it is not at all intuitive."

So when a player says "This doesn't make sense.", I should tell him/her to forget everything they know about reality and change their "first principles"?

No. I don't think so. The new player has to have a starting point from which to base their perceptions. That starting point would most logically be reality as we know it, then diverge from there with magic, monsters, etc.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, that starting point would most logically be the narrative flow and visuals/descriptions of fantastic media.

That means Agent Smith and Sauron cannot be mooked, no matter how long you wait to kill them in their sleep - because they are freaking AGENT SMITH and SAURON. If they go down at the end of the adventure, it's because of a titanic, thrilling life or death struggle against PCs nearly as awesome as they are.

Conan, Luke Skywalker and Terra Branford cannot be mooked, either. They're in no danger of more than cosmetic injury - unless Xaltotun, Darth Vader or Kefka show up, in which case they had better be prepared to give 100% and hopefully have other PCs of similar narrative significance to help them out.

An Imperial stormtrooper, a Mordor orc or a Stygian soldier, on the other hand, can be mooked by a PC - because they're mooks. If they survive or the PCs run away, it's because the players don't want to be bothered wiping them out.

If you are attempting to model reality rather than heroic fantasy, games designed for gameplay first and modelling heroic fantasy second are going to fail for you.

In any case, two of my explanations for potions (toughness accrued over time and tolerance for potions) fall within the range of 'real-world rules explicable,' insofar as healing potions do at all, and the other two both involve magical properties of the world - rather like 'the ability to create magical potions' itself.