Legends & Lore 6/14: Faces

[I'm A Banana]

It is free to the world.

It's a really interesting article, and I'm more than on board with what Mearls's ideas are so far.

BUT, I gotta say, when I think 4e, I don't always think "abstract."

Sure, it's abstract with regards to noncombat stuff. The whole "Powers and monsters can be whatever you fluff them as, guys!" and "You don't need mechanics for conversations!" and suchlike.

But it's intensely detailed with regards to combat.

"Which square are you in? How many squares can you move? What's the size of your burst? Does this provoke an OA? What kind of movement is this? What about the action economy? What's your surge value?"

3e was crazy detailed in this regard, too.

"Tactics", from what I can tell, can never be "abstract." The moment you have abstraction, you're removing tactics from the equation, because you're making broad assumptions and making it easy to resolve, rather than the detail required when you're making tactical choices. There's no real concrete tactics in 4e outside of combat, but in combat, there's a LOT of tactics. Which means that, to my face, it can't be very abstract.

I'd almost make the grid "Abstract" <-> "Detailed" and "Cinematic" <-> "Sandbox" instead. This would make 1e and 2e on the "abstract" side, though 1e would be "Sandbox" and 2e would be "Cinematic". 3e and 4e would both be "Detailed," and 3e would be more "Sandbox" than 4e.

But any way you slice it, I'd definitely get on board with a D&D that can do it all no matter what.

It sort of remains to be seen how 4e can even manage to do that, though. What with all the hate over essentials even daring to challenge the ADEU hegemony, it seems kind of like the trufans already know what they want, and it's not anything other than what they've got.

What do you think?

I'm liking this series of articles very much, overall.

 

[M.L. Martin]

BUT, I gotta say, when I think 4e, I don't always think "abstract."

I'd need to take another look at the article, but I wonder if what he meant might be something closer to 'effect-based'.

What do you think?

I'm liking this series of articles very much, overall.

I'm enjoying them--but I'm becoming more and more inclined to believe that he's doing brainstorming and soliciting initial opinions for what will, in 4 or 5 years' time, become 5E.
I'd note that 4E is the one edition they didn't do anything like this for. TSR encouraged fan feedback and input on the runup to 2nd Edition; WotC did the same, if a bit less overtly, for 3rd Edition. 4th Edition seemed constructed more from passive gathering of information, which may have something to do with its more immediately divisive status.

 

[MerricB]

BUT, I gotta say, when I think 4e, I don't always think "abstract."

I think you need to reread Mike's definitions, which are a bit odd in this article. Abstract refers to the mechanics as they directly model/simulate the game world. Although 4E does say, "oh, he's in that square" (as did 3E), it rather handwaves things like what prone represents in the world. Yes, I can knock a ooze prone. How does that work? Move along, nothing to see here...

3E is a lot more of "this is how it should work in the world, so let's make a mechanic to represent it" (Immersion). 4E tends to put elegant mechanics first and then lets the players work out what the mean in the game. (Abstraction).

The Immersion-Abstraction axis has nothing to do with how the mechanics are used in the session: it's about how the mechanics are designed.

Meanwhile, the Story-Tactics axis determines how mechanics are used in the session. If it's far on the Tactics side, then knowing the rules inside out is going to be really, really useful, as what you're doing is trying to overcome the challenges set by the DM by using the rules. If you're able to go beyond the rules, then you're moving onto the Story side of things.

Consider the games of Chess and Advanced Squad Leader. Both are boardgames that (sort of) simulate a battle. Both have hard & fast rules - so, both are on the far edge of the Tactics side of things. However, Chess is Abstraction, whilst ASL is all Immersion, with rules for every little thing that could happen. (Not always accurate rules, but anyway...)

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Although 4E does say, "oh, he's in that square" (as did 3E), it rather handwaves things like what prone represents in the world....3E is a lot more of "this is how it should work in the world, so let's make a mechanic to represent it" (Immersion). 4E tends to put elegant mechanics first and then lets the players work out what the mean in the game. (Abstraction).

I see...certainly missed Mike's more specific definitions. Though I might personally argue that any system with a grid combat struggles to be "abstract" even in that sense. OAs and measurements and the like aren't very elegant or simple, and they are embodied in how the combat should look in the world, instead of how the combat will flow at the table. But I do see the point that even the intricate combat mechanics in 4e have a tendency toward the abstract in the sense that they aren't grounded in any imaginary reality.

If it's far on the Tactics side, then knowing the rules inside out is going to be really, really useful, as what you're doing is trying to overcome the challenges set by the DM by using the rules. If you're able to go beyond the rules, then you're moving onto the Story side of things.

That makes more sense now, too! Though "Tactics" and "Story" are really odd terms for that.

Hmm...given those definitions, I suppose I'd sit to the "Tactics" side and go slightly more toward "Immersion." Though, weirdly, I am a pretty narrative-style player, and I think 4e's combat is way too concerned with the detailed diagram of combat. So, I would like a game that is MORE abstract and MORE tactical (in certain ways) than 4e? Which is at the far bottom right? Hmmm.....

Anyway, it's got me thinking, which is a pretty good sign.

I'm enjoying them--but I'm becoming more and more inclined to believe that he's doing brainstorming and soliciting initial opinions for what will, in 4 or 5 years' time, become 5E.
I'd note that 4E is the one edition they didn't do anything like this for. TSR encouraged fan feedback and input on the runup to 2nd Edition; WotC did the same, if a bit less overtly, for 3rd Edition. 4th Edition seemed constructed more from passive gathering of information, which may have something to do with its more immediately divisive status.

Yeah, I don't think you're alone in that hypothesis. To be a fly on the wall at WotC now would be an interesting time, I imagine...I half wonder if the articles we're seeing now aren't designed to lead up to a big announcement at GenCon of something for the game. 5e or 4.5 or a re-launch of the "AD&D" brand or what....

 

[KidSnide]

I think you need to reread Mike's definitions, which are a bit odd in this article. Abstract refers to the mechanics as they directly model/simulate the game world. Although 4E does say, "oh, he's in that square" (as did 3E), it rather handwaves things like what prone represents in the world. Yes, I can knock a ooze prone. How does that work? Move along, nothing to see here...

Mearls' definitions are a little odd, mostly because he is focusing very heavily on mechanics. To me, immersion is about how much you as a player feel like you are within the game world. For D&D, it's about role-playing, descriptive quality, the room you're in and the music being played in the background. In a live-action game, you can have an excellent game where immersion is the primary objective. In a table-top game, immersion is a difficult-to-achieve effect that has almost nothing to do with anything ever published by Wizards of the Coast.

I think Mearls' immersion-to-abstraction axis was just an attempt to create a simulation-to-game axis without the baggage that those terms have in communities like this one.

-KS

 

[Gadget]

What Mearls and others in this thread are calling 'Immersion' is what we have been calling 'simulationism' since this was the main cause of the big divide when 4e first came out. 4e was more 'gamist' (what the article calls abstraction) in order to provide the much ballyhooed balance. The problem with simulationism, IMHO, is that at some point (even if it is a vary detailed and heavy simulation that many would find too dense) the simulation begins to break down and becomes vulnerable to 'gaming the system' and is ripe for abuse. I don't find abstraction (or gamest) systems to overly hinder immersion in the story/game/narrative if done well and consistently.

I also found it interesting that Merric's excellent definition of immersion as:

"this is how it should work in the world, so let's make a mechanic to represent it" seems to describe almost exactly how most of AD&D's mechanics came about, yet it is described in the article of as 'Abstract'.

 

[MerricB]

I also found it interesting that Merric's excellent definition of immersion as:

"this is how it should work in the world, so let's make a mechanic to represent it" seems to describe almost exactly how most of AD&D's mechanics came about, yet it is described in the article of as 'Abstract'.

Funnily enough, I think Mike's pretty spot on by describing AD&D mostly as "Abstraction". When you come down to it, the core mechanic of D&D - hit points, THAC0 and armour class - as pretty much on the Abstraction side of things. There are nods towards Immersion at times - witness the AC vs Armour Types table, which hardly anyone used - but mostly AD&D comes down on the abstraction side of the table.

The main area where AD&D goes towards immersion is with its spells, although they're hit and miss as to immersive mechanics.

Compare to the detail in the Rolemaster combat charts: 20 armour types (which every monster and character has), defensive modifiers, critical charts based on weapon type, and so on and so forth. The hit locations of Runequest...

Cheers!

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

yeah it seems like the opposite

of what they meant to say. The minute you prescribe precise mechanics to simulate something, is the minute you make it "real" (in the game world). A d20 roll gives reality to your intended attack, turns an abstract concept of a swing into a "hit", and its resultant damage changes that hit into possibly a slight scar or a watermelon (or waffle). These things change what can happen in the next round, and thus are no longer "abstract".

AD&D spells = awesome. They do exactly what they say they do, albeit modified according to the DM's and the player's intentions (with the dice rolls possibly acting as an intermediary).

In 2nd ed. I cast Invisibility and I am insisible...all...day...long. I always get the first shot off. Then I can fly away. Or drop another spell. The system should help your decide whether you kill things or they kill you, and how fast. I prefer a system where you can do great, daring things, at huge personal risk to yourself, than be mired in a bog of mediochre effects and a give-n-take of -for-tat piddling damage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem with simulationism, IMHO, is that at some point (even if it is a vary detailed and heavy simulation that many would find too dense) the simulation begins to break down and becomes vulnerable to 'gaming the system' and is ripe for abuse.

Interesting that Mearls isn't saying that any style is the "wrong way to do it." He's saying that lots of folks do it this way, and that maybe 4e does, maybe it doesn't (though I still think that immersion is very important for many elements of 3e and 4e grid combat, it's kind of the exception rather than the rule here).

I think one of the reasons the vocabulary is so contorted is that he was avoiding "simulation," specifically because it's usually just knocked down by folks who say exactly that: "You CAN'T have a perfect simulation!"

The game system, when it does this, isn't trying to give you a perfect simulation. It's trying to give you the sense of being an imaginary character in an imaginary world, rather than of being a dude at a table rolling dice. When the mechanics leap out at you and scream at you that you are clearly playing an artificial construct, that you are obviously spending your weekend afternoons pretending to be a magical gumdrop elf, it can be very off putting to people who want to get into character. It breaks the fourth wall too hard.

Some folks are fine with it, others, it clearly hurts their ability to play the game.

When you come down to it, the core mechanic of D&D - hit points, THAC0 and armour class - as pretty much on the Abstraction side of things. There are nods towards Immersion at times - witness the AC vs Armour Types table, which hardly anyone used - but mostly AD&D comes down on the abstraction side of the table.

I think part of the weakness here is that D&D has exactly that kind of patchwork, even in 4e. If you're not a fan because 90% of the rules are too abstract for you, AND 10% are too deeply immersive for you, adjusting that "grid" isn't going to help you get a better grasp on what you want to play. It's not that the game is sitting at the wrong point, it's that its application is all out of whack. Making the game more immeserive overall isn't going to help you on that 10% that you think is already too immersive

I've always kind of contended that people want more immersive mechanics ("more rules") for things that they want to spend a lot of time doing, and more abstract mechanics for things that they want to breeze by. Simple helps you resolve fast, complex helps you feel more in control. I think a big box of D&D that can grab the whole grid would have to include the ability of DMs to pick and choose which points to have at which level of complexity. It can't say "The only rules for combat are these grid combat rules," it has to say "One way to do combat is to use these grid combat rules. Another way is to roll a d20 and the highest wins. Another way is to make a foam sword and go out and wail on your buddies." It also has to say "One way to convince an NPC of something is to have a conversation in-character at the table. Another way is to roll a series of "social attacks," slowly wearing away their "social defenses." Another way is to use your Charm Person ability." It has to say that for every kind of conflict usually found in D&D (exploration, interaction, combat, and discovery).

Which seems like a tall order.

I dunno....I just had the idea that maybe all this is WotC leading up to the announcement of old edition stuff going up as Print On Demand or OGL or something. Certainly would be very all-inclusive!

 

[Gadget]

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } Yes, I definitely agree with the "there is no wrong way to do it” argument. There may be a “wrong way” at my table or your table due to particular style and taste preferences, but it is a good attitude for a designer to have. It is a spectrum, and I think it is generally a good a idea to keep from going too far toward one end of the spectrum.


I think people who cry “You CAN'T have a perfect simulation!” are not doing so out of some academic design aesthetic that is being offended; but rather the imperfect simulation tends to take certain mechanics into the simulation without the many varied complex interactions that may combine to keep the effect in check in the fictive “reality” under simulation. Take, for example, a Trip Monkey build, or many of the various other mechanics that end up having the exact opposite of the simulationist goal of immersion: a result that does not match up very well with expected outcome in the fiction under simulation. This can be, IMHO, very fourth wall breaking as well. So more simulation focused mechanics need to be added to try and make the result more in line with the expected outcome...which often leads to more mechanics in a cycle.


I think the to consider with the “grid” combat, with both 3e & 4e, but particularly in 4e, is that they are there largely to satisfy the tactical side of the tactical/story axis on Mike's chart, rather than exclusively the Immersion/Abstraction axis. I would say AD&D favored the story side of this axis, while 3e & 4e favor the tactical side. Can it be that a lot of the rules complexity comes from this axis rather than the other? I don't know.