The 2 axes of abstraction

Why 5e is a game about fights

This article features affiliate links, which incur no cost to you.

About 5 years ago, Luke Gearing wrote a blog post called Mechanisms as Abstraction. It has become an infamous piece of ttrpg design thinking, and comes up pretty often in game design discourse.

In essence, it argues that a game isn’t actually about what it has rules for. Gearing suggests that because rules are a way to not need to make judgements at the table, the stuff they don’t cover is what we are really digging into when we play.

And I think there’s a lot of merit to this idea, the oft given example these days is how Mothership has no rules for hiding because it wants you talk a lot about hiding in play rather than relying on a rule to shortcut discussion.

But something that always disgruntles me is claims like: See! DnD 5e isn’t about combat because look at all its rules for combat!

Anyone who’s got their thinking cap on half-straight knows that’s not true. Well, I have an idea. It’s not just about what we abstract into rules and what we don’t: it’s about the complexity of the abstraction and the complexity of the matters left to the table.

---

2-factor abstraction model

We’re going to use 2 factors to model what a game ‘is about’ vs. ‘isn’t about’:

• Coded vs free: Essentially whether the game has rules for something. OSE has rules for swinging a sword (coded). It does not have rules for brewing potions (free).

• Complex vs simple. Whether the rules or a judgement is simple or complex to use/make. The rules for combat in 5e are complex: they offer a lot of gameiness and take up table time to execute. The rules for combat in Into the Odd are simple: they are quick to execute. The judgement of whether a character can jump a gap is simple, the judgement of how they make a healing potion is complex.

This gives us 4 zones on the chart.

I’m going to make the following case:

• Games are about their complex rules and complex judgements. If a game has detailed and time-consuming rules for something, the game will focus on those aspects. Complex topics the game doesn’t have rules for but that it implies will come up by nature of the game are also focus points. That’s because they require time and thought to make judgements on.

• Simple rules are abstractions that remove focus from that topic. Mechanisms make a game not about something if they are simple and quick: if they don’t take up table time.

• Matters that are simple to judge are not the focus of a game. If a game with firearms doesn’t have rules for reloading, the game doesn’t become about reloading firearms. Reloading is an easy judgement, and remains consistent.

To make the case, we’re going to plot some games on this chart. We’ll pick 4 rules they have, one for each quadrant.

---

Example 1: Cairn

• Cairn has extensive procedures for exploration and supply tracking. These are a focus point of the game. The rules support you in making it a central part of the game: it is about exploration and resource management.

• Cairn doesn’t have specific rules for disarming traps, but implies traps are part of playing Cairn. It doesn’t have a procedure for disarming traps because it expects disarming traps to be a complex ‘in-world’ discussion. The players investigate the trap, ask the GM questions, and come up with a diegetic plan on how to disarm it. The GM might call for a save if needed. It’s a complex discussion that needs to be had on a case-by-case basis. So it becomes a focus of the game.

• Cairn has simple rules for combat and violence. That’s because it wants a quick resolution tool: it means combat is abstracted away and isn’t the focus of the game because it can be executed quickly.

• Cairn doesn’t have specific swimming and climbing rules. But these are easy to make quick judgements on when players are exploring/travelling, so their absence doesn’t define the game.

---

Example 2: Mothership

• Mothership has extensive rules for stress and sanity. Imagine trying to claim Mothership wasn’t about the mental toll of horror! The mechanics are there to make it a focus of the game.

• Mothership doesn’t have rules for stealth. That’s because it expects this to be an at-the-table discussion and when enemies are often so dangerous, hiding is a natural consideration. Working out if someone is successfully obscured is a complex judgement: it takes time and therefore becomes a focus of the game.

• Reloading weapons has simple rules in Mothership. Which means you don’t worry about it much: Mothership isn’t really about firing guns that much.

• Mothership essentially has no carrying capacity rules (they are a ‘be reasonable’ type rule). The game isn’t about inventory restrictions as a result. Mothership is telling you it’s not about inventory management.

---

Example 3: Blades in the Dark

• Blades has a lot of rules on factions and controlling territory. It is telling you that factions and territory are a cornerstone of a Blades game, and giving you the tools to support that focus in-depth.

• Blades does not have rules on infiltrating and exfiltrating heist locations. That’s because it expects you to figure that out as the fiction unfolds, rather than following a specific procedure. But it’s complicated and unique to each heist: so the game focuses on that.

• Loadout and gear are simple in blades. There gear you can pick is literally on your character sheet and loadout levels are specified. What gear you pick doesn’t matter so much in Blades, equipment isn’t the cornerstone of play.

• Travelling around Duskvol is given no procedural detail. That’s because Blades doesn’t want you to care about that. It wants you to cut to the dramatic bits and locations!

---

Complexity is the secret ingredient

Claiming DnD 5e isn’t about combat because it has extensive rules for it is like claiming Ars Magica isn’t about casting spells… it’s a ridiculous claim.

Sure, some tables may decided to shift focus away from the more complex mechanics of a game, but they are making a choice to actively ignore/not utilise a large portion of what the designers intended for table-time to spent on.

You don’t write a combat system like 5e’s and not intend it to be used regularly, that would be unhinged! In summary:

Games are about the things they have complex rules for and about the complex judgements they regularly require (for which they lack rules).

That’s my armchair theory anyway.