There was always something about "5e isn't about combat" that bugged me as an end point. This is a great clarification on that feeling I had. Thanks for the thought and the explanation.
Oooo I want more grids!! Ok I will try The Electric State RPG ... complex and coded rules about Hope versus Bliss (the bad kind of bliss provided by being jacked into the neurocasters) ... complex and free rules about tension between characters as it is important but not coded ... coded and simple rules for travel as the game is a 90s roadtrip through dystopia BUT it just needs to happen and isn't the focus even if it is the setting ... free and simple rules for exploring and searching as there aren't really any because if you need a wrench at a mechanic shop you get a wrench let's move on. MOAR!!!
what kinds of differences in terms of this 2-axis schema do you see between DnD and some of its derivatives, e.g. Nimble, Shadowdark, Daggerheart, etc?
By making changes and/or simplifying out those aspects of the game that DnD proper has its most complex rules, do you think that that shifts enough of where the complexity and focus of those games can be found, or do you consider them fundamentally the same *kind* of game (combat simulators, basically)?
I think some of those do represent shifts, specifically Shadowdark (which I have read and played) is a much more old-school style of game where combat functions as a more simple abstraction (certainly compared to 5e). Nimble (which I have read but not played) is still pretty combat centric, it has a lot of combat coded abilities, combat centric status conditions etc. Daggerheart likewise is very combat centric (have read and played), with the majority of its crunch dedicated to combat and the whole cards infrastructure being largely centred on a combat game. Fights take significant time in Daggerheart specifically vs Shadowdark.
This is fantastic and immediately provokes a further question from me: I feel the at-the-table distinction between Rules and Judgments isn't always easy. During play, it can be quite free, but often the distinction only emerges with analysis our hindsight. As a designer, how can you lean on an area of "Complex Judgment" that is also "Simple/Rules Lite" -- ie, a focus of the game, but in a purely diegetic way?
I think that gets into the whole topic of rules diegesis, and how we might try to design rules that are as diegetic as possible and/or as minimal in their disruption of verisimilitude as possible!
So, in a way, try to write rules that "unspool" in a way that makes sense, diegetically, so that when the diegesis "respools" into rules (or rulings), there's a sense of cohesion? That makes a lot of sense to me.
In my games, that's lately taken the form of, "Take any of the dice you might be rolling as part of this test. The more you compellingly talk through what you're doing, the bigger any of those dice might get, or the more of them you might get to roll, then keep the best 2." There's lots of rules about how you build the pool in the first place, but lots of freedom to them further modify that pool through diegesis.
This is really on target for me. As I try to work on game design in my spare moments, I realized this answers a lot of questions about dice mechanics. In fact this should be considered before choosing a dice system.
I love this framing! I've always thought of the continuum from abstraction to simulation as a curve akin to the Uncanny Valley where the more one tries to reach "total freedom via simulation", the deeper one falls into obfuscation.
Great write-up on why not looking at things through a binary lens is important. It's not a this-or-that, it's a "both and" for sure.
As someone who designs around Mork Borg as a way to minimize complexity in all aspects, my hope is always that by pairing things down, better immersion and "zooming-in" of events can happen. The more rules something has, the less (I've found) players tend to actually roleplay that aspect of the game..
Thanks for the well-written article, but unfortunately I still don't think this model is very accurate or precise for determining what is important within a particular system.
For starters, there are many simple rules and judgements that can monopolize the focus of a game. "You die if your HP reaches 0" is a very simple abstraction for answering the complex question: "How do I know if some source of harm is enough to kill a player?" However, the intensity of the consequence means HP will always be heavily on the player's mind, even if computing it is as simple as: "Every attack that hits deals exactly 1 damage to your HP". Players will constantly be monitoring their HP and looking for ways to increase it or prevent damage to it. The game will literally end if they don't. That's as important as it gets!
Similarly, I can have a game that rules "Your character can carry no more than 3 items". This is a very simple abstraction, in both rules and judgment, for handling the potentially complex topic of inventory. All it requires is the binary DM decision "does X count as an item" and the players' ability to count to 3. However, because it is so strict and constraining, it is almost sure to make inventory management take a large role in the gameplay. If your fighter has a sword, shield, and armor they can't carry anything else. That is going to play a large role in how the players approach problem-solving within the game. Judgements that should, in theory, be simple like "does a map count as an item?" will become long heated arguments in discussion forums and at the table because the consequence for that answer is very large.
On the other hand, there are sometimes complex but relatively inconsequential systems. Often this is a sign of unfocused design, but a skilled DM will have to learn to identify these systems. In the 5e DM guide pretty specific travel procedures are laid out... but are subsequently ignored by the official modules and are not mentioned in any other game components indicating they were probably an afterthought.
Still, there is the occasional legitimate use for high complexity and low impact rules and judgements. The opportunity to engage in additional complexity can become a point of attachment and personalization for some players that others can opt out of. Many RPGs have complex base-building procedures that don't really impact gameplay that much, simply because it provides such an optional mode of engagement.
Interesting thoughts! I think there’s a few push backs here!
Regarding zero HP, I play a lot of games with that sort of rule. That rule only becomes a focus when damage is being done to my players, which makes sense, since we are deploying that rule at that time. But having overall simple combat rules or damage rules means that combat and damage itself is not the focus of our conversation: it doesn’t occupy much table time at all! We don’t spend time discussing HP beyond ‘subtract this much please’.
I’d actually argue that a 3-slot inventory system is so constraining that it could easily become a point of non-decision. Players would rarely change what they carried with a 3-slot system and would focus on a singular optimised loadout which doesn’t lead to interesting interactions or conversations at the table. It wouldn’t define gameplay much at all! Your point about whether a map counts is bringing rules ambiguity into the discussion, which we didn’t actually cover. That’s because interrogation of rules language clarity is really something we can’t measure, it’s subjective! There’s also a good argument that rules ambiguity itself makes a rule complex, it’s a whole other can of worms!
Regarding complex rules that don’t see much use, I think you’ve already identified that this is arguably bad design or a symptom of design bloat. What it requires is the want to engage with rules for the sake of engaging with rules, which while a valid form of play for sure, is something that I think from the design side of things we should be very wary of. I think it would be pretty hard to make a compelling argument that 5e’s travel rules being complex but also largely unused was an example of good game design.
Something doesn't have to be frequently, explicitly discussed for it to be important. Many of the most important assumptions and rules for role-playing games are basically never discussed. Going back to my previous examples, by introducing the concept of HP you immediately introduce the idea "death is possible in this game" and attach it to a tangible quantity. Even if the implementation doesn't require much explicit book-keeping it seems really weird to say that isn't *important* to how players and the DM will understand the game. Because there are no consequences to having 5 HP compared to 50 HP players will behave differently if they perceive themselves as having a lot of HP, when weighing whether to participate in a combat "What is my current HP? How much damage do I expect to take?" will almost certainly be questions driving that decision-making process. It's mostly implicit, but an entire dynamic is added to the game when this *very simple* rule is in place.
Similarly, even if the players eventually discover some static, unchanging optimum around the 3 inventory slots, that still is in and of itself an *important* development. A player's starting class is a decision made exactly once and is never made again, but even in old school D&D I think most players would consider class an important aspect of the game (less important than later editions, for sure, but still important). An inventory this restrictive may even effectively replace the role of class since it would be difficult for any one character to have both a spell book and a full set of weapons/armor. 10 foot poles, ropes, caltrops, and other utility gear would have to basically be mandatory to complete an objective before a player would even consider bringing them along. That is a drastically different dynamic from old school D&D already. If, for whatever reason the gameplay did require lugging a variety of mandatory (or at least, very important) items back and forth throughout the dungeon that would be an even more different dynamic and one that would certainly be on people's mind. Love it or hate it, its probably the most discussed aspect of the classic Resident Evil games after all!
My point about the map isn't about ambiguity per se, I agree that ambiguity in and of itself is mostly a separate issue, but the arguments people have over ambiguity are a reflection of what they find important and valuable. "How many coins does the map weigh?" in a typical encumbrance system is unambiguously a more complex judgement than the binary "is a map an item?" in the 3 inventory slot system, but the judgement in the latter case will almost certainly impact the gameplay more and the players will care much more deeply about the outcome of that judgement. That seems like the very definition of *more important* to me.
I agree that it is almost always bad (or maybe more kindly, unfocused) game design for something to be complex and unimportant. A big problem I have with 5e is that there are a lot of examples of this. That said, good or bad design, it still means your model does not help very much in answering the question "what is important in D&D 5e or [insert system here]?" which is a legitimate question any novice DM starting a game would have and something you have heavily implied your model would help answer.
I think there is something more fundamental missing from the model even if I unfortunately can't put my finger on it.
I think part of our disconnect here is what we consider to be important. For me, in reference to the original article by Luke Gearing, what we talk about at the table is the most important thing, and the most interesting thing. It’s the meat of the game.
My impression of your perspective (which could be wrong of course), is that you’re also looking at how rules shape behaviour outside at table discussion, often unspoken behaviour. Which I think it’s fair to say, is not something abstraction theory cares so much about: an intrinsic premise of it is that interesting and valuable gameplay is about engaged conversation.
Maybe that’s where our outlooks diverge, but I’d encourage you to explore your own thoughts in an essay of your own maybe! See if you can come up with an alternative framework that you prefer to examine systems through and publish it!
My last comment, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I will consider your suggestion to write my own article as my thoughts develop.
This definition of important makes the entire article seem very tautological (I also don't even think it is the one Gearing uses unless there is another article I am missing). Complex rules/judgements are precisely those that require more book-keeping, mental bandwidth, and/or discussion. This is also apparently your criteria for importance, so of course you would reach the conclusion that complexity is proportional to importance. In truth, many conversational interactions are kind of inane and pointless even if they have a lot of back and forth. Others can be incredibly meaningful despite being terse and one-sided. See the linked article on "The Door Tax". It's the established set of boundaries, goals, and context that determines which conversations truly mattered and which were a waste of time (i.e. which were important and which weren't) not simply the presence of conversation. I'd argue the rule set of a game contributes significantly to establishing those boundaries, goals, and contexts and does so in a way that is not directly tied to the complexity. Guess I have my thesis statement for the essay :)
Sorry for so many long posts. I find this discussion engaging.
Adding complexity can also directly reduce the importance of an element of a game. In 5e, the relationship between HP and death is more complex than old school D&D because it is mediated through an additional mechanic, death saving throws. The end effect of this is that death is less likely to happen in 5e than old school, and that having low HP is less intimidating because an additional buffer mechanic exists between HP and death. Maybe one can argue that because HP is a more disposable resource in 5e the gameplay can more comfortably revolve around it fluctuating quickly and unexpectedly (thus adding book-keeping), but I think the general player experience is that both death and HP in old school D&D feel a lot more important than in 5e. "High lethality" is often cited as one of the pillars of old school play! That's a direct relationship between the simplicity of old school death and its importance that is already well-established in the community.
There was always something about "5e isn't about combat" that bugged me as an end point. This is a great clarification on that feeling I had. Thanks for the thought and the explanation.
You’re welcome!
Oooo I want more grids!! Ok I will try The Electric State RPG ... complex and coded rules about Hope versus Bliss (the bad kind of bliss provided by being jacked into the neurocasters) ... complex and free rules about tension between characters as it is important but not coded ... coded and simple rules for travel as the game is a 90s roadtrip through dystopia BUT it just needs to happen and isn't the focus even if it is the setting ... free and simple rules for exploring and searching as there aren't really any because if you need a wrench at a mechanic shop you get a wrench let's move on. MOAR!!!
Another great read!
Can I translate it to Portuguese, to share with the Brazilian ttrpg community?
Of course! Just include a link to the original source and it’s all good!
Done!
It's here, if you are curious.
https://cafecomdungeon.wordpress.com/2026/05/18/os-2-eixos-da-abstracao/
What an excellent and succinct explanation of game design! I will employ your diagram in my own designs! Thanks a lot!
No problem!
Another helpful tool which I feel like I could employ in my own design thinking. Thanks!
You’re welcome!
what kinds of differences in terms of this 2-axis schema do you see between DnD and some of its derivatives, e.g. Nimble, Shadowdark, Daggerheart, etc?
By making changes and/or simplifying out those aspects of the game that DnD proper has its most complex rules, do you think that that shifts enough of where the complexity and focus of those games can be found, or do you consider them fundamentally the same *kind* of game (combat simulators, basically)?
I think some of those do represent shifts, specifically Shadowdark (which I have read and played) is a much more old-school style of game where combat functions as a more simple abstraction (certainly compared to 5e). Nimble (which I have read but not played) is still pretty combat centric, it has a lot of combat coded abilities, combat centric status conditions etc. Daggerheart likewise is very combat centric (have read and played), with the majority of its crunch dedicated to combat and the whole cards infrastructure being largely centred on a combat game. Fights take significant time in Daggerheart specifically vs Shadowdark.
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing!
This is fantastic and immediately provokes a further question from me: I feel the at-the-table distinction between Rules and Judgments isn't always easy. During play, it can be quite free, but often the distinction only emerges with analysis our hindsight. As a designer, how can you lean on an area of "Complex Judgment" that is also "Simple/Rules Lite" -- ie, a focus of the game, but in a purely diegetic way?
I think that gets into the whole topic of rules diegesis, and how we might try to design rules that are as diegetic as possible and/or as minimal in their disruption of verisimilitude as possible!
So, in a way, try to write rules that "unspool" in a way that makes sense, diegetically, so that when the diegesis "respools" into rules (or rulings), there's a sense of cohesion? That makes a lot of sense to me.
In my games, that's lately taken the form of, "Take any of the dice you might be rolling as part of this test. The more you compellingly talk through what you're doing, the bigger any of those dice might get, or the more of them you might get to roll, then keep the best 2." There's lots of rules about how you build the pool in the first place, but lots of freedom to them further modify that pool through diegesis.
This is really on target for me. As I try to work on game design in my spare moments, I realized this answers a lot of questions about dice mechanics. In fact this should be considered before choosing a dice system.
Glad that it’s helpful!
I love this framing! I've always thought of the continuum from abstraction to simulation as a curve akin to the Uncanny Valley where the more one tries to reach "total freedom via simulation", the deeper one falls into obfuscation.
Great write-up on why not looking at things through a binary lens is important. It's not a this-or-that, it's a "both and" for sure.
As someone who designs around Mork Borg as a way to minimize complexity in all aspects, my hope is always that by pairing things down, better immersion and "zooming-in" of events can happen. The more rules something has, the less (I've found) players tend to actually roleplay that aspect of the game..
Thanks for the well-written article, but unfortunately I still don't think this model is very accurate or precise for determining what is important within a particular system.
For starters, there are many simple rules and judgements that can monopolize the focus of a game. "You die if your HP reaches 0" is a very simple abstraction for answering the complex question: "How do I know if some source of harm is enough to kill a player?" However, the intensity of the consequence means HP will always be heavily on the player's mind, even if computing it is as simple as: "Every attack that hits deals exactly 1 damage to your HP". Players will constantly be monitoring their HP and looking for ways to increase it or prevent damage to it. The game will literally end if they don't. That's as important as it gets!
Similarly, I can have a game that rules "Your character can carry no more than 3 items". This is a very simple abstraction, in both rules and judgment, for handling the potentially complex topic of inventory. All it requires is the binary DM decision "does X count as an item" and the players' ability to count to 3. However, because it is so strict and constraining, it is almost sure to make inventory management take a large role in the gameplay. If your fighter has a sword, shield, and armor they can't carry anything else. That is going to play a large role in how the players approach problem-solving within the game. Judgements that should, in theory, be simple like "does a map count as an item?" will become long heated arguments in discussion forums and at the table because the consequence for that answer is very large.
On the other hand, there are sometimes complex but relatively inconsequential systems. Often this is a sign of unfocused design, but a skilled DM will have to learn to identify these systems. In the 5e DM guide pretty specific travel procedures are laid out... but are subsequently ignored by the official modules and are not mentioned in any other game components indicating they were probably an afterthought.
Still, there is the occasional legitimate use for high complexity and low impact rules and judgements. The opportunity to engage in additional complexity can become a point of attachment and personalization for some players that others can opt out of. Many RPGs have complex base-building procedures that don't really impact gameplay that much, simply because it provides such an optional mode of engagement.
Interesting thoughts! I think there’s a few push backs here!
Regarding zero HP, I play a lot of games with that sort of rule. That rule only becomes a focus when damage is being done to my players, which makes sense, since we are deploying that rule at that time. But having overall simple combat rules or damage rules means that combat and damage itself is not the focus of our conversation: it doesn’t occupy much table time at all! We don’t spend time discussing HP beyond ‘subtract this much please’.
I’d actually argue that a 3-slot inventory system is so constraining that it could easily become a point of non-decision. Players would rarely change what they carried with a 3-slot system and would focus on a singular optimised loadout which doesn’t lead to interesting interactions or conversations at the table. It wouldn’t define gameplay much at all! Your point about whether a map counts is bringing rules ambiguity into the discussion, which we didn’t actually cover. That’s because interrogation of rules language clarity is really something we can’t measure, it’s subjective! There’s also a good argument that rules ambiguity itself makes a rule complex, it’s a whole other can of worms!
Regarding complex rules that don’t see much use, I think you’ve already identified that this is arguably bad design or a symptom of design bloat. What it requires is the want to engage with rules for the sake of engaging with rules, which while a valid form of play for sure, is something that I think from the design side of things we should be very wary of. I think it would be pretty hard to make a compelling argument that 5e’s travel rules being complex but also largely unused was an example of good game design.
Something doesn't have to be frequently, explicitly discussed for it to be important. Many of the most important assumptions and rules for role-playing games are basically never discussed. Going back to my previous examples, by introducing the concept of HP you immediately introduce the idea "death is possible in this game" and attach it to a tangible quantity. Even if the implementation doesn't require much explicit book-keeping it seems really weird to say that isn't *important* to how players and the DM will understand the game. Because there are no consequences to having 5 HP compared to 50 HP players will behave differently if they perceive themselves as having a lot of HP, when weighing whether to participate in a combat "What is my current HP? How much damage do I expect to take?" will almost certainly be questions driving that decision-making process. It's mostly implicit, but an entire dynamic is added to the game when this *very simple* rule is in place.
Similarly, even if the players eventually discover some static, unchanging optimum around the 3 inventory slots, that still is in and of itself an *important* development. A player's starting class is a decision made exactly once and is never made again, but even in old school D&D I think most players would consider class an important aspect of the game (less important than later editions, for sure, but still important). An inventory this restrictive may even effectively replace the role of class since it would be difficult for any one character to have both a spell book and a full set of weapons/armor. 10 foot poles, ropes, caltrops, and other utility gear would have to basically be mandatory to complete an objective before a player would even consider bringing them along. That is a drastically different dynamic from old school D&D already. If, for whatever reason the gameplay did require lugging a variety of mandatory (or at least, very important) items back and forth throughout the dungeon that would be an even more different dynamic and one that would certainly be on people's mind. Love it or hate it, its probably the most discussed aspect of the classic Resident Evil games after all!
My point about the map isn't about ambiguity per se, I agree that ambiguity in and of itself is mostly a separate issue, but the arguments people have over ambiguity are a reflection of what they find important and valuable. "How many coins does the map weigh?" in a typical encumbrance system is unambiguously a more complex judgement than the binary "is a map an item?" in the 3 inventory slot system, but the judgement in the latter case will almost certainly impact the gameplay more and the players will care much more deeply about the outcome of that judgement. That seems like the very definition of *more important* to me.
I agree that it is almost always bad (or maybe more kindly, unfocused) game design for something to be complex and unimportant. A big problem I have with 5e is that there are a lot of examples of this. That said, good or bad design, it still means your model does not help very much in answering the question "what is important in D&D 5e or [insert system here]?" which is a legitimate question any novice DM starting a game would have and something you have heavily implied your model would help answer.
I think there is something more fundamental missing from the model even if I unfortunately can't put my finger on it.
I think part of our disconnect here is what we consider to be important. For me, in reference to the original article by Luke Gearing, what we talk about at the table is the most important thing, and the most interesting thing. It’s the meat of the game.
My impression of your perspective (which could be wrong of course), is that you’re also looking at how rules shape behaviour outside at table discussion, often unspoken behaviour. Which I think it’s fair to say, is not something abstraction theory cares so much about: an intrinsic premise of it is that interesting and valuable gameplay is about engaged conversation.
Maybe that’s where our outlooks diverge, but I’d encourage you to explore your own thoughts in an essay of your own maybe! See if you can come up with an alternative framework that you prefer to examine systems through and publish it!
My last comment, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I will consider your suggestion to write my own article as my thoughts develop.
This definition of important makes the entire article seem very tautological (I also don't even think it is the one Gearing uses unless there is another article I am missing). Complex rules/judgements are precisely those that require more book-keeping, mental bandwidth, and/or discussion. This is also apparently your criteria for importance, so of course you would reach the conclusion that complexity is proportional to importance. In truth, many conversational interactions are kind of inane and pointless even if they have a lot of back and forth. Others can be incredibly meaningful despite being terse and one-sided. See the linked article on "The Door Tax". It's the established set of boundaries, goals, and context that determines which conversations truly mattered and which were a waste of time (i.e. which were important and which weren't) not simply the presence of conversation. I'd argue the rule set of a game contributes significantly to establishing those boundaries, goals, and contexts and does so in a way that is not directly tied to the complexity. Guess I have my thesis statement for the essay :)
https://blog.3x5arcana.com/p/the-door-tax?utm_source=substack
Sorry for so many long posts. I find this discussion engaging.
Adding complexity can also directly reduce the importance of an element of a game. In 5e, the relationship between HP and death is more complex than old school D&D because it is mediated through an additional mechanic, death saving throws. The end effect of this is that death is less likely to happen in 5e than old school, and that having low HP is less intimidating because an additional buffer mechanic exists between HP and death. Maybe one can argue that because HP is a more disposable resource in 5e the gameplay can more comfortably revolve around it fluctuating quickly and unexpectedly (thus adding book-keeping), but I think the general player experience is that both death and HP in old school D&D feel a lot more important than in 5e. "High lethality" is often cited as one of the pillars of old school play! That's a direct relationship between the simplicity of old school death and its importance that is already well-established in the community.