Monte on Logic in RPGs
+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 84

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    Mark CMG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI 53147
    Posts
    9,651
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    GM's DayCMG

    Block Mark CMG


    Friend+
    My communities:

    Monte on Logic in RPGs

    Monte Cook (one of the designers of D&D 3E, and until recently of D&D Next) has written a short essay on "Logic in RPGs" over on his journal, The Chapel Perilous. It largely deals with the concept of rules-heavy and rules-light systems ("rulings not rules") and the effects such systems have on gameplay, while clearly stating his preference for the latter. It's not a new theory by any stretch, but it goes some way to codifying it clearly.

    You can read the essay here.
    Attached Files Attached Files  
    Last edited by Morrus; Wednesday, 6th June, 2012 at 04:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator-Class Vessel
    Lama (Lvl 13)



    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,863
    Reviews
    Read 38 Reviews

    Block Lwaxy


    Friend+
    My communities:

    He nailed it right down.

  3. #3
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Fifth Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Fredericton, NB, Canada
    Posts
    6,031
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Fifth Element


    Friend+
    Thankfully he defined what he means by "logic" at one point, by which he basically means "whatever basis the DM and players want to use to drive their play experience."

    Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.

  4. #4
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    Mark CMG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI 53147
    Posts
    9,651
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    GM's DayCMG

    Block Mark CMG


    Friend+
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Monte
    If this seems like a salvo in the so-called Edition Wars, let me assure you that it's not. It's a game design issue and it extends far beyond editions of any one particular game. I lament that there are now so many game design issues that one can't even discuss without them turning into Edition War name calling and finger pointing. In that regard, that detracts from, rather than adds to, the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fifth Element View Post
    Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.

    Two posts in. Not a record but close.

  5. #5
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    6,316
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Lanefan


    Friend+
    Reading this makes me even more curious as to why he left the 5e design team, as 5e is starting to look like it might need a bit of this kind of thinking.

    Lanefan

  6. #6
    Pathfinder subscriber COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    billd91's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    9,751
    Reviews
    Read 3 Reviews
    I Defended The Walls!

    Block billd91


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanefan View Post
    Reading this makes me even more curious as to why he left the 5e design team, as 5e is starting to look like it might need a bit of this kind of thinking.

    Lanefan
    He said it was a dispute with the company, not the designers. Exactly what that means, we don't know. But if it truly has nothing to do with the design direction of the rules of the game, I assume the dispute is pretty serious for him to give up working on it.

  7. #7
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Fifth Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Fredericton, NB, Canada
    Posts
    6,031
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Fifth Element


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark CMG View Post
    Two posts in. Not a record but close.
    Nice try, but not every comment about the good stuff/bad stuff in a particular edition is an attempt at an edition war. Guess which edition of the game I'm playing right now?

    And whether this was even a comment about bad stuff is a matter of opinion anyway, all I said was that it went against what he was talking about - if you disagree with his post you'd see that as a good thing, and I offered no comment on whether I agreed with his post in toto or not.

    Also, note that I only said it was "interesting". I didn't say it made his comments invalid or that he was a hypocrite or something stupid like that.

    So no, people can discuss various editions of the game without warring about it. But it's difficult, because there tends to be someone who will interpret it that way anyway.

    Back to the thread!

  8. #8
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    Mark CMG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI 53147
    Posts
    9,651
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    GM's DayCMG

    Block Mark CMG


    Friend+
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fifth Element View Post
    (snip)

    Rather than just discuss the content sans edition, you felt the need to put it in terms of edition despite that being the exact opposite of the sentiment in the blog.

  9. #9
    Pathfinder subscriber COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    billd91's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    9,751
    Reviews
    Read 3 Reviews
    I Defended The Walls!

    Block billd91


    Friend+
    Quote Originally Posted by Fifth Element View Post
    Thankfully he defined what he means by "logic" at one point, by which he basically means "whatever basis the DM and players want to use to drive their play experience."

    Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.
    Note that he does say there are games out there like that that are excellent. I'd say that's true. So maybe he doesn't want to work on games like that anymore. Does that justify the cheap shot?

  10. #10
    Member
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)



    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    7,279
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    Block Dausuul


    Friend+
    This is a tricky question, because IMO it isn't as simple as "rules-heavy" versus "rules-light." A rules-light game can be an enormous burden on the GM who has to adjudicate everything on the fly, not to mention frustrating for players who have trouble figuring out what their PCs can do.

    I think a better way to view it is this: Every game has a GM who is capable of independent thought and judgement. This is a powerful resource. But it is also a finite resource; the GM only has so much time and mental energy to spend on adjudication. Therefore, it is the task of the game designer to build a system that uses the GM's talents to greatest effect. That means applying that resource in a focused, efficient way, in the places where it will yield the most benefit.

    In particular, the GM should not be called upon to arbitrate routine events. In a D&D-style heroic fantasy game, when a player swings an axe at an orc with intent to kill, no special circumstances in evidence, the rules should handle that without either GM or player having to do anything but work the numbers and roll the dice. It's when the player wants to backflip off a cliff, catch hold of a vine on the way down, swing across a chasm, swing her axe to knock over a stone idol on the far side, and then swing back before the falling idol hits the bottom, that the GM should get involved.

    But even then, a good system will provide both GM and players with a framework to build on. As others have pointed out, RPG players are very vulnerable to Hammer-Related Nail Observance Syndrome. If the rules tell you exactly how to whack an orc with an axe, and offer not so much as a hint on the backflip-vine-swing-idol-knock-swing-back maneuver, you won't see much of the latter.
    Last edited by Dausuul; Thursday, 7th June, 2012 at 06:21 PM.

+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, 24th June, 2013, 08:14 PM
  2. The logic of OAs
    By RangerWickett in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR Gaming
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: Friday, 28th May, 2010, 10:43 PM
  3. The Logic (or Lack of) in D&D
    By Olaf the Stout in forum Roleplaying Games General Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: Friday, 9th March, 2007, 10:41 AM
  4. Circular Logic FAQ
    By Exquisite Dead Guy in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, 18th September, 2006, 04:46 AM
  5. Some Thoughts on Logic
    By Tharivious_Meliamne in forum ISRP General Chit Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Friday, 30th January, 2004, 02:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •