Simulationists, Black Boxes, and 4e

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The black box model works when I turn the key; I just trust the mechanic (designer) built me an engine (system) that will last, and I run/play the game without worrying about the back-end design stuff.

The process-response model gives me knowledge of the minutae of the rules, of *how* the engine works and in a game sense how things come to interact in the ways they do. I'm the sort of DM who wants to get under the hood and tinker with the engine, to come up with rules that have as an end result things interacting in ways that make sense to me, while understanding (or trying to) the various knock-on effects such tinkerings might have.

Lanefan

The HD advancement system doesn't tell you how the system works, either. (At least not in 3E). There is no clear correlation between HD or Ability Scores, or for choosing spell-like abilities or supernatural abilities, or determining its CR.

The Black Box model doesn't even have this "inner workings". They plain don't exist, they aren't hidden. It is not as if 4E would hide the details on HD, skill points or similar stuff from you. It does not exist in the system.

What you're describing is as if the 3E designers didn't write down "Saving Throws for supernatural and extraordinary ability scores are determined by 10 + 1/2 HD + relevant ability modifier", but using the resulting DCs everywhere. (That's actually what was true for the 3.0E Monster Manual, IIRC).

But that's not true for the Black Box 3E system. The formula for arriving at attacks is clearly stated. (Relevant Ability Score Modifier + 1/2 level. Relevant Ability Score Value is determined according to level and monster type as in table X).

There are some similarities between both aspects, too.
The 3E system does not explain why Dragon HD grant you d12 hp, Full BAB, and Best Saves, and Undead HD grant you d12, Half BAB, Worst Saves.
The 4E system does not explain the reason for the existence of table X. (ThHough at least in the latter case, I think I might be able to understand the math behind it.)

 

[small pumpkin man]

We-ell, as a DM I pretty much insist on knowing both: the internal workings, so I can get under the hood and tinker; and the interactions, so I can run the game.

No. 3.x hitdice are are process-response because if you want to make a CR blah Dinosaur/Dragon, they're tough, so you give them more hitdice, and all of the flow-on effects. In 4e you either make them brutes, which gives them more hp or you make them Elite/Solo which gives them more hp (with a couple of flow on effects).(or you just go "screw it" and give them more hp)

Whether or not 4e gives more or less options in total,the change from process-response to Black box does not reduce your options in and of itself, and in fact greatly increases the options of a newbie DM, since the don't have to learn how the system works to get what they want, they just think about the results they want and get them as opposed to having to learn the proceses involves to get the specific response they want.

It has the capacity to lose granularity, but if designed properly, you don't lose actual options.

As a player, I really only care about the interactions provided they are arrived at in a somewhat rational and consistent manner, and only when this rationality fails do I want to see the inner workings to try and suggest a fix. 4e's rationality fails in one fundamental way, as an example: different things that in a consistent model would be the same (e.g. commoners and very low level PCs) function under different - i.e. non-consistent - sets of parameters and rules. From a player perspective this makes the interactions between them not work quite right, so I'd be after the DM to get under the hood and make it work.

Lanefan

Why would a low level character be like a commoner? They should be like a town guard, or a local hedge Wizard. Which they are.

Irregardless, the important part is the part I bolded. As a player, the results have to be rational and consistant, the idea that the stats of NPCs and PCs need to arrived at by the same manner is silly. An NPC who knows about the secrets of Undead doesn't need to lose the ability to jump really high, no one cares, and while a PC spontaniously getting trained in all skills is bad, an NPC with skills far above normal for it's "combat level" merely needs a good story explanation, not a mechanical one.

 

[WhatGravitas]

There are some similarities between both aspects, too.
The 3E system does not explain why Dragon HD grant you d12 hp, Full BAB, and Best Saves, and Undead HD grant you d12, Half BAB, Worst Saves.
The 4E system does not explain the reason for the existence of table X. (ThHough at least in the latter case, I think I might be able to understand the math behind it.)

That's the funny thing: 3E was a black box that looked like a fluff-based process-response model (like class levels, HD, and CR, which were often truly arbitary... because it worked on a game level).
4E is a process-response model on the actual game and math level, but looks like a black box.

Cheers, LT.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Good analogy. 'Old School D&D' was black-box. I personally feel that 3.x was a knee-jerk reaction to the black-box model.

It is a really good thing that 4e is going back to the black box model. This time it is internally balanced for the math (unlike any previous edition), which is perfect for a black-box system.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Good analogy. Another way to look at it though is from from the Monster CR/Level perspective.

3E modeled a monster and then tried to guess its CR based on the outputs the model produced. Getting the CR right was more art than science, and it had to be done for each new monster written up.

4E figured out what the numbers were for a given monster level and has no model for creating those numbers. They "just are". They describe a relationship relative to a group of 4-5 adventurers of a given level, and don't signify anything deeper than that. They're written up in a chart once and playtested. After that all monsters are based on those numbers. "You want a 17th level Brute? Here you go. Now spice with powers (aka, exceptions) but use common sense (aka, design)."

As for the "Simulationists" (which I count myself among), whether 4E works for them or not depends on whether they're "big picture" or "fine detail." If you compared them to model train builders, a fine-detail Simulationist wants the train to work just like a real train works - only smaller. A big-picture Simulationist wants something that looks like a train and gets train-like results within the larger model city he's building. It doesn't matter whether or not there's an accurate transmission inside the train.

That's different than "process" vs. "black box" though because the level of detail the Simulationist needs to "have fun" is rather arbitrary. For instance, you could complain that 3E wasn't simulationist enough becuase it didn't properly model the digestive system of the Purple Worm. How fine grain do you need to get? Naturually the answer to that question is subjective.

 

[Blackeagle]

I actually thought about it the other way in that black boxes were crunch and process-response was fluff. Black boxs is the ends where the process-response is the means. Either way its a great analogy.

I never really thought of the 3e grapple rules as particularly fluffy.

 

[TerraDave]

Good analogy. 'Old School D&D' was black-box. I personally feel that 3.x was a knee-jerk reaction to the black-box model.

It is a really good thing that 4e is going back to the black box model. This time it is internally balanced for the math (unlike any previous edition), which is perfect for a black-box system.

I basically agree. I think 3E got about as far into "the black box" as it could, and this is a pull-back. But its not a full retreat, I mean, I haven't heard anything about 1 minute combat rounds.

 

[Kraydak]

A big advantage of process-response models is that they are robust in the sense that you can extend them to cover situations they aren't explicitly designed for. PnP RPGs need to work in a messy, uncontrolled environment, which means that rule-sets will be used outside of their design space. A process-response model will cover more design space. In DnD terms, if your NPC design system and your PC design system are unrelated, you run into problems if anyone tries to treat one as the other. This includes monsters-as-PCs, charm/dominate, allies etc...

Minions are another black-box design, and the intro module *already* takes them outside of their design space (temp. hp).

The second problem DnD has with black-boxes is that DnD is messy: making a good black-box is functionally impossible. Comparing 3e to 4e monster design, it is important to remember that getting the basic stats (BaB/AC/defenses-saves etc...) right is the easy part. If your boast is that you have a good black-box that will do that for you, your boast is empty. The hard part is, and always has been, the specials (Ex/SA/SU). If your black-box covers those, its all good, but by that point you have an adequate model for a process-response design, which is more robust. This is why I am utterly unimpressed with the "4e monster design is easy" claim. We have seen no evidence, at all, that they have a system for designing good specials.

 

[Benglishman]

Good analogy. Another way to look at it though is from from the Monster CR/Level perspective.

3E modeled a monster and then tried to guess its CR based on the outputs the model produced. Getting the CR right was more art than science, and it had to be done for each new monster written up.

4E figured out what the numbers were for a given monster level and has no model for creating those numbers. They "just are". They describe a relationship relative to a group of 4-5 adventurers of a given level, and don't signify anything deeper than that. They're written up in a chart once and playtested. After that all monsters are based on those numbers. "You want a 17th level Brute? Here you go. Now spice with powers (aka, exceptions) but use common sense (aka, design)."

Are you referring to the experience total? Because the other numbers (attack bonuses, damage, etc.) do have a model for creating them. As someone stated earlier, that model is 1/2 level + appropriate ability score modifier (+ racial adjustments and monster role adjustments, probably).

Even the experience total, though, seems to have some sort of model (even if it is black box and currently hidden from us). A standard monster of level X is supposed to be equal to a PC of level X's experience total. I think I'm just not quite sure of what, specifically, you mean when you say the numbers "just are."

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is a pretty decent overall analysis of the game design universe. In my opinion both styles of design can be good for a game depending on what you want that game to be.

The Black Box model seems (to me at least) to be backwards engineered from results type of model. For example: We want X to happen in a game, lets design rules that lead to X. The important key factors here being balance and a sense that the numbers, manipulated in a logical fashion, will bring X about. The upside of this is that you can can achieve predictable results that preserve balance so long as the math doesn't get skewed. The downside is that same predictability.

The Process Response model seems to be the "why?" model. We know that we would like X to happen and we can come up with the mechanical how, but why does it work like that?
Rules are written with a rationale that establishes a method, rather than a specific mechanic which can result in particular applications being unbalanced. The upside is that the game world will have an internal consistency that makes immersion roleplaying easier. The downside is that balance can be skewed from the start.

Looking at it like this it seems most games blend these styles in a ratio that approximates the feel it is going for. Which one is really "better" depends on the group. The real problems are with mixed groups that are very attached to a heavier dose of one style or the other.

For my own group we like a heavier portion of Process Response. For other groups YMMV.