Depth of Detail

[anarkeith]

One of the things that strikes me as I consider various editions of D&D, and systems that we are discussing of late like Dragon Age and Savage Worlds, is the depth of detail that game mechanics deal with. The emphasis may be on different things (e.g., combat, role-playing, exploration, PC development), depending on the system. And people tend to gravitate towards systems that have mechanics for what they want to do.

That said, I prefer fewer mechanics to more mechanics, which is one of the reasons I grew disillusioned with 3.x D&D. So many feats. So many classes. Playing Randy's Lords of Chaos rules is a breath of fresh air in the character-development area. The player is allowed to choose very specifically how their character develops, within a very manageable framework. Just the right amount of detail for me as a player. However, as a GM, the combat mechanics are (for me) too involved.

Mechanics that are too involved interfere with my enjoyment of the game as a GM. 3.x D&D achieved that with its plethora of player options, and 4e D&D has matched that complexity now, but its modular nature makes the complexity easier to parse on the fly. I prefer GM'ing 4e to 3.x, but 4e is quickly reaching escape velocity from my planet-of-interest.

In January I GM'd six sessions instead of my usual two. I played in a couple as well. Pretty much all of it was 4e-based. I saw a lot of players utilizing game mechanics over role-playing. Originally, D&D contained an abstraction of combat to deal with the fact that it was a competitive part of the game. GM presents challenge. Players discuss, formulate, and present a solution. Dice are rolled to determine resolution. (The players know that combat mechanics assume die-rolling, and are usually excited to test their fortunes.)

Physical and intellectual challenges were left to the ingenuity of the players. GM presents challenge. Players discuss, formulate, and present a solution. GM adjudicates solution, perhaps calling for some die-rolling to simulate varying degrees of competence, fortune, or circumstances of which the players are unaware.

Nowadays, most players are defaulting to the combat-resolution model in response to physical and intellectual problems. That's because 4e rules contain the mechanics that enable that. The result is that physical and intellectual challenges take up far less game time than they did previously. Correspondingly, the combat mechanics of 4e contain role-playing "scripts" that choreograph the combat to give it the feel of role-playing. Role-playing without the need for players to get involved in the messy, imprecise business of making stuff up.

That's the core of the issue for me. I love the making-stuff-up part. That's what I want to do when I sit down with you all for a gaming session. I know we have to have some agreed-upon rules to create a framework for the shared experience, but when that framework becomes the focus of our time together, it all sort of loses the magic.

When a player does something completely unexpected with their character from a role-playing perspective, I am free to flow with that and create some cooperative fun. When a player throws down a newly-released rule or ability as part of the action, I am restrained by the mechanical boundary that the rule presents. Of course, one could argue that my reaction is purely an emotional one, and that it is entirely a matter of perspective. A PC's new-won power, played at precisely the right moment to turn the tide in a battle is epic fun, right?

Totally true. However, it's not the way I like to play the game. The story I want my players to write is one I'd prefer they create, from the cloth of their imaginations. Not by plugging in a choreographed component. A human playing chess plays with emotion, inspiration, and creativity. A computer playing chess leafs through a database of programmed responses, and plugs in the most advantageous choreographed component.

I'd love to hear your opinions on this.

[randy]

I've stated this elsewhere, but it definitely applies to this. IMO, the big advantage of the original D&D combat system was it abstracted combat and let players focus on role-playing. D&D still has abstracted combat, only now it is very complicated (although they've managed to duplicate many of the powers across the different classes- that is not a good thing). You get the weakness of abstracted combat combined with the weakness of complicated combat- the worst of both worlds. I personally, even as a combat junkie, can play and really enjoy one or the other- but the Frankengame approach seems fairly certain to annoy most players who care about such things.

At the end of the day, good role-playing is possible in any system- that is something driven by the GM and players. For the combat junkie in me, all I really need is a few powers/abilities (it doesn't have to be multiple books worth, just a few that are different from each other) that let me affect the battlefield through my decisions. I like the different character classes to be unique (as opposed to everyone having a "push" ability), so that a team can work together using their unique skills to be greater than the sum of their parts.

I still think it comes down to running the type of game you love to run, and bringing in players that enjoy that style! If you are enjoying yourself as a GM you will be more engaged, which leads to better prep, better play, and better execution. I think most players are fairly flexible if the pluses out weight the minuses of any system, game, or GM.

[steve]

You bring many thoughts to mind. Pardon my scatterness.

One of the nice things about Randy's game is that a character simply builds upon basics. As a fighter, if I want to dabble into magic, I can learn a simple spell. That seems "realistic" to me. In most commercial RPGs this would mean multi-classing and I'd get a whole plethora of other benefits from that action. A combat lowly wizard that wants to multi class into a Paladin, for example, gets a huge hit die, turns undead, lays on hands and etc. all because he multi-classed on leveling up. With later editions the minimum ability scores disappeared so there was much abuse with multi-classing.

I'm often confused when people tell me that 3.x was very complex and hard to follow. That was not my experience. I think I saw the explosion of supplements starting in earlier editions. For that reason when I started running 3.x I told my players we would only be using three books, the DMG, MM and PHB. No supplements, no magazines, no web pages and etc. It was simple and fun. I'll probably be moving into Pathfinder in the future. I intend to apply the same formula there.

I think the looseness of the earlier editions of D&D made it fun and open to all kinds of good role playing and common sense. One of the sins of 4E is that it turned a good RPG into a miniatures game. I've always played a LOT of miniature games so I've been able to see that parallel. The rules did start tightening up with 3.x but they went on steroids with 4E. In 4E I see less role playing an more rules playing. "My miniature moves X squares and uses rule Z to apply max-hurt on monster V".

After one session we were analyzing the game and one of my players said the 4E seemed incredibly legalistic. I hadn't thought of that but as soon as he said that it struck true with me. If you look at the keywords on the powers you'll see what I mean. Each word really has a detailed meaning behind it. Some of the following is extrapolating off the forums. Look at Target, for example. There is a difference between target and targets. A creature is any living thing. There is a difference between a creature and an object. An ally is someone in your party, a friendly NPC is NOT an ally. Huh? Your horse is not an ally. An enemy is anyone not your ally. Therefore a friendly NPC gets treated as an enemy for some spells. You are not an ally. In past editions a fireball would whack all things and creatures within it's blast zone simply because it was a basic explosion now you have to hire a lawyer to tell what it hits and what it misses. OK, I went slightly overboard with that example but it's not too far off the mark.

If you read a lot of the forums you'll get an inkling of what I'm talking about. I've also noticed that players trying to create ultimate min-max or abusing rule loopholes have driven a lot of the errata coming out. In earlier editions it was simply the DM telling the player they couldn't perform an action. Now they need to justify it by the rules for some reason. There are a lot of errata examples sent by WotC that say "this has been changed to disallow players from infinitely using blah, blah, blah in a single turn."

I had an interesting conversation with a friend a couple of days ago about this. It seems to be an America-centric issue. In England the miniature rules have always been a bit loose and it was always a gentleman's agreement about how to resolve disputes or misunderstanings. Deal with them and move on. In America we seem to need an iron clad resolution over all points. It's really prevalent in Warhammer gaming. The Brits really get confused when Americans ask "how do you resolve issue X?". They don't get why we have problems. Americans don't get why there can't be a definitive answer to X. Over the past ten years this has started to spill over into our RPGs.

[randy]

Steve, I think your observation is spot on. In financial matters, for example, most other countries (and especially England) set forth broad based principles- "you need to act in the best interest of the client", "you need to pay your fair share of tax". In the US we say "thou shall not steal from old ladies", and when some firm steals money from old men because the rule didn't say they couldn't. The regulators then come up with a rule regarding stealing from old men, and that firm steals money from trans-gender people because they argue that they are a different class, and the cycle continues. It is embarrassing and impossible to protect the consumer from a determined cheater.

I come from the school of GMing that says the GM is GOD (perhaps we should do a discussion thread on this- I would be interested in more enlightened opinions). He/She makes the rules, arbitrates all decisions and arguments, and ultimately decides what is possible and not possible. Therefore it is our responsibility as GM to set the tone for what is allowed and what is not. The game companies come up with supplements to sell more books, which in most cases add very little (IMO) to the overall game experience- with rare exceptions.

We as GMs need to give the players flexibility to tell their story and provide a consistent foundation for them to operate under. I like to give as much power to the players as possible, but I also have to protect the players from themselves (setting up a god at 1st level may seem like a good idea at the time but is probably fairly boring to play on a regular basis) and from other players who just like to push the system (deliberately or not).