Monte on Logic in RPGs

Fifth Element · Jun 6, 2012

Mark CMG said:
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.

Sorry, I thought we could handle it like adults.

Back to the thread?

Fifth Element · Jun 6, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
To a certain degree, this was a problem with my 4e experience. Lots of places where the rules told me to do it myself, and, as a result, I had no real idea what to do.

In other words, it's a great Rule Zero, but we're gonna need more than that (even if just a little bit).

Careful, you mentioned an edition!

Monte's post did specifically mention that games shouldn't be completely freeform - if you're supposed to be good at hitting things with an axe, that should be in the rules to make sure it happens.

I think, as in most anything, it's a matter of finding the right balance. Giving the DM advice is certainly fine and good, but there's varying degrees of quality of advice, and there's no way to ensure a DM takes the advice.

Hypersmurf · Jun 6, 2012

Fifth Element said:
Back to the thread?

Yes, please.

-Hyp.
Moderator

wrightdjohn · Jun 6, 2012

I love Monte as a designer. I am as excited as can be that he may design a game entirely himself. I know this sounds over the top but I've always felt he is the logical successor to Gary Gygax as the spirit of D&D roleplaying.

I'm curious what he will do and what genre he will do it in.

I'm A Banana · Jun 6, 2012

Fifth Element said:
Monte's post did specifically mention that games shouldn't be completely freeform - if you're supposed to be good at hitting things with an axe, that should be in the rules to make sure it happens.

And suddenly, it becomes your main way of interacting with the world.

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

I think, as in most anything, it's a matter of finding the right balance. Giving the DM advice is certainly fine and good, but there's varying degrees of quality of advice, and there's no way to ensure a DM takes the advice.

I think 4e is interesting because it shows two extremes. In combat, almost everything was codified. Out of combat, almost nothing was. The result? IMXP, 4e encouraged you to get into a fight to solve your problems, rather than work outside of the combat system.

A game shows with its rules what it is interested in the details of, where it wants you to direct your attention. If the only rule that exists is "You can hit it with an axe," that's going to be what people do most of the time.

Which is why you want rules for a LOT of things your character can do, to encourage them to do it.

Which quickly becomes 3e: rules for every little thing.

I think what I'd like is a 3e philosophy with just broader, simpler, more flexible rules (a "Page 42," rather than a section on item hardness and a section on grappling and a section on disarming and a section on Diplomacy).

So you have rules for every little thing, or, rather, you have A RULE that covers almost any little thing, and that rule is flexible, modular, and adaptable.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 6, 2012

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Funny you should say that, KM!

Mercutio01 · Jun 6, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
So you have rules for every little thing, or, rather, you have A RULE that covers almost any little thing, and that rule is flexible, modular, and adaptable.

Yes, exactly. And I think 5E is moving in that direction with the idea that stats are key. 2E did this for sure. There were a lot more "roll a Str check" and "roll a Wis check" back then.

Also, don't conflate Monte Cook's work on 3E with 3.5. The beasts have some differences, and 3E, despite some of its flaws, was a little more open-ended than 3.5. At least until the dozens of little splatbooks came out, which is what necessitated 3.5 to begin with.

billd91 · Jun 6, 2012

Lanefan said:
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.

innerdude · Jun 6, 2012

From Monte: "If a player can't base his actions on a consistent application of the rules, he can't make informed, intelligent decisions."

This. This this this this this this.

At their absolute core, this is what RPGs are trying to achieve--to represent a state of "reality" in such a way that the players involved can make intelligent, informed, rational decisions about how their characters interact with that reality.

Sometimes that rationality is based on "logic," as defined between the players and GM. Sometimes it's based on "logic" as defined by real world physics. Sometimes it's defined by specific mechanics that directly interpret the action input / resulting consequence.

My experience as a GM finds that the most fun games are the ones that rely as little as possible (but as much as necessary) on the third "arm" of mechanical definition.

Janx · Jun 6, 2012

Fifth Element said:
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.

I don't see this as a dig at 3e. I see it as Monte's perspective on game design has changed since he made 3e and this article reflects that.

It's also of note that Jeff Dee's rebuttal to Monte had some merit.

Monte criticized what the computer can do. Jeff pointed out his specific example was partly a limitation of the technology (it takes more resources to track status on every little object like Elder Scrolls does).

But he goes on further to point out, that the holy grail of making the perfect set of rules to define everything is exactly what happens in the real world and its set of rigig rules, yet human creativity still abounds.