Your level of Granularity

[Stormonu]

I was thinking on this shortly before reading the latest of Monte's articles musing on D&D and thought I'd propose it here.

What level of detail do you like in game, and in the different areas of the game? While I've posted some options for the poll, feel free to introduce other areas I might not have thought of, and what level of detail you like in those areas of the game.

Skills/Abilities: I consider this area to include the skill system, class and racial abilities of the characters. The level of detail here might range to mere descriptions with no formal rules ("fluff") to detailing each possible mechanical ability, bonus, penalty or effect that directly applies to a die roll or game component interaction. For example, on one extreme, elves may be referred to as "flighty", while on the other extreme, elves may suffer a -2 penalty to skill checks requiring concentration or extended periods of time to complete to represent their "flighty" nature.

RP/Interaction: This area I primarily consider how the players and DM interact. The level of detail here could range from the player essentially being their character; what they know, say and are capable of are directly what their character says and is able to do, to the other extreme where attributes are delineated for what the character can do, regardless of the player's actual ability - a Diplomacy skill for influencing others, Knowledge skills for relating facts about enemy creatures and so forth.

Depth of Detail: This is the area where the player character's interact with the world around them. This could range from simple, generalized rules or guidelines to highly detailed rules that take into account minutia of detail. This can be in a variety of areas of the game - combats (with or without battlemats, powers, feats, maneuvers), encumbrance rules (do you ignore it, eyeball it, track every coin) to the subtle differences in gear (a spata handles differently than a drusus, which handles differently than a irish short sword, which is different from a chinese straight blade, etc.). Even things like monsters - do you only track the oft-used stats, eyeball the numbers or build them via a formula the same way characters are built? This last are covers a lot of ground, and where one person may have a great depth of detail (say, hit locations and critical wound charts) another person may have it in a completely different area (tracking weapon, armor and gear upkeep or perhaps keeping a box with the actual recipes for the various meals available at the local tavern).

 

[steenan]

I, generally, like three different kinds of games.

One has clear and strict, but simple rules. Rules give the structure and descriptions are built around it. On the other hand, the rules are abstract enough not to restrict description and not to produce absurd situations. This type of games typically use player-defined traits, unified resolution systems and conflict resolution. They allow (or even encourage) some measure of metagaming and generally aim for story rather than character immersion.
Nobilis or Dogs in the Vineyard are good examples here.

Second type of games I like is in many ways an opposite. Mechanics is "weak", not in the sense of being purely designed, but in a sense of being only a tool in GMs hands, instead of an important part of the game by itself. There is no need for detailed rules for anything; what is crucial is a good, consistent setting and style. Genre conventions and common sense play greater role in resolution than dice rolls; character abilities are primarily guides for characterization. This works well with character immersion and simulationist play.
I mostly played Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness this way, though none of those systems is designed for this specifically. Fortunately, it's often just a matter of cutting out unnecessary rules and playing in a more freeform fashion.

The third type of games focus strongly on a specific kind of activity and offer more detailed rules for it, while simplifying the rest. This means engaging the system more and using it to interact with fiction. In some games it's combat as a separate, tactical mini-game, in some it is detailed personality and social interaction system, in some it's a long-term resource management. As long as the detailed rules are concentrated in a single area and that's the area that is important for the game, it's fun. If the game has no focus and is detailed everywhere, it becomes unwieldy and slow in play.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Different parts of D&D I want to have different levels of granularity. For example you're lumping skills and abilities all into one, I don't. Some skills I want to see detailed rules as to how/why they work with specific, complex mechanincs to accompany them. Other skills need only very general explantion and if they even need mechanics at all it may be a simple pass/fail roll that need not be based on any ability score the character even has. Many skills and abilities will bleed over into other areas like RP and world detail. Some, like say diplomacy, may have mechanical uses as a skill but should not be allowed to mindlessly displace RP interactions which requires a good deal of DM moderation. And yet, if a player wants to run a character who IS a great talker and very convincing but is HIMSELF, in real life, unable to roleplay such a character to the degree desired there should be no issues with the DM giving such a character/player greater leeway with the skill than he gives others in certain circumstances.

For depth of detail I wouldn't expect everyone to hold to the same standards from one game to another. One DM may want and need differentiation between a half-dozen different kinds of short swords but most don't. Some may want to track every copper piece, every pound of encumbrance, every arrow shot and meal eaten, others decidedly don't, and most probably don't want to bother with minutia until such time as the minutia become a more significant factor due to game circumstances. Characters taking in thousands of gold (tens of thousands?) regularly should not be bothered with ticking off the coppers for few torches - until such time as, say, the PC finds himself cut off from his money in a faraway city and running critically low on funds.

One size does not fit all and the fit changes over time. For any version of the game the designer has to make decisions where he wants certain lines to be drawn. Then when the game gets into the hands of the actual users it will be bent, folded, twisted, and mutilated to THEIR needs and desires and IMO the game should always be as accommodating to them as it can be. The more a version takes a stand as if to say, "No. THIS is how you will play the game," and then forces you to adapt your game to ITS approaches the worse reception and longevity it will have.

 

[the Jester]

This one is a big fat "It depends" for me.

I like all these things at different times, with different groups, in different systems.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I prefer rules that aren't oversimplified, and yet are easy enough for me to remember during play. For example, I much prefer 4e's grab to 3.x's grapple. I could never keep the rules for grapple straight. On the other hand, grab is easy to remember. They could even add granting combat advantage to it, and it still wouldn't be a problem. I don't have a problem with a rule having a certain degree of granularity, but adding too many exceptions and corner-cases creates something that's a mess in play.

While I prefer the "say what you're going to do and roll" method, I also believe that a good statement of intent should nullify the need for a roll in most cases. If there's a safe behind a portrait, and you tell me that you're looking behind the portrait, you shouldn't need to roll a perception/search check to find the safe. On the other hand, if you say you're searching the wall the portrait is hanging on, or the room it is hanging in, you should roll. You should also only roll a skill check if there's doubt regarding success or failure, as well as consequences.

A reasonable amount of detail is good, but too much is excessive for me. I don't ever want to find out that I missed due to the windshear resistance of blood on my blade, for example. Don't give me a table of 10 detailed modifiers if 2 or 3 can form a reasonable approximation. If I, as a DM, feel that a situation warrants a more nuanced approach, I can modify the numbers myself as long as the designers have given me the ballpark numbers the system assumes. For example, don't give me ten different penalties from 1/10 to 10/10 cover. Just give me partial and almost perfect cover. If I feel that a player has better than partial cover, I can always assign him a +3 or +4 instead of a +2, based on circumstances.

I want a game that assumes I'm not a game designer, but doesn't assume that I can't think on my feet. Keep things simple but don't simplify to the point where I could just as easily play free-form.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm pretty comfortable with any level of granularity, except either extreme. I find that immensely fine system overload ease of play too much, but systems that go extremely coarse lose the minimally useful distinctions.

Whatever level of granularity is chosen for a system, however, I want it to be reasonably consistent. Otherwise, how the model is expressed in abstractions and mechanics tends to develop flaws that jar me (and often give me a negative aesthetic reaction, as well). For example, if a system has a detailed weapon list, I want those weapons to be more or less fluff consistent with a rather coarse combat system, or I want the different weapons to matter mechanically along with a more fine combat system.

All else being equal, I want my D&D a bit more coarse than fine. I think D&D needs to have classes and levels to be D&D. I think classes and levels automatically imply a certain bottom limit on granularity, to stay consistent. Thus, I'll happily accept a finer model in some skills-based systems that I wouldn't find consistent in D&D.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I picked Medium, High, and Medium (in that order) as the way I DM and my players seem to have liked it so far. We don't play a very serious game. We're very laid back. Those of us in the group who have DM'd will read boxed text from modules and things like that, but we don't really get into the nitty gritty of details.

One thing we all do and like is when it comes to skills checks, the players have to roll and then describe what they're trying to accomplish, like, say, lassoing a flying monster with a rope that's tied to a statue on top of a building. (We're now making her into boots.)

We're the same with NPCs that we haven't interacted with yet. If we're trying to get information, whether through Diplomacy or Intimidation, we have to roll for success and then describe how we're attempting to get that information.

 

[Croesus]

I prefer rules that aren't oversimplified, and yet are easy enough for me to remember during play.

This.

The main problem with very detailed rules is that a group generally has only two options when the situation comes up: 1) open the rulebook and check the rule, in all its glorious detail, or 2) wing it. I prefer not to have to constantly look stuff up during play (option 1), and if I'm ignoring a rule (option 2), why have it in the first place?

Rules that are simple enough to remember during play get used. Such rules don't have to be comprehensive - just complete enough to allow the GM and players to handle the situation with a minimum of fuss. Anything more than that can go in a sidebar as optional detail that groups can use or ignore, as they prefer.

 

[howandwhy99]

I picked a whole bunch. For Details I picked all 4.

Relating what's on the map behind the screen with broad generalizations. As the players attempt to inspect further they learn more and more levels of detail. They choose how much more they want by focusing further. So all 3 options are there, but the players are choosing how much beyond a base standard they want.

 

[Umbran]

Like some of the others, I'm not inclined to say I generally want one level of detail all the time.

One item folks may not have mentioned is that this can be genre dependent - what level of detail I want in a particular area is apt to be different between say, a noir gumshoe game and a high-fantasy game or a "mostly minis combat mecha game".