Monte on Logic in RPGs - Page 4





+ Log in or register to post
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 84
  1. #31
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Fifth Element's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Fredericton, NB, Canada
    Posts
    6,040

    ° Ignore Fifth Element
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget View Post
    Aside from a few spells (like Charm Person, Command, Knock, Hold Portal, etc.), yeah, absolutely!
    All right, your perspective is certainly consistent then. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

  • #32
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Zuerich
    Posts
    1,804
    Blog Entries
    11

    ° Ignore Fenes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lwaxy View Post
    I'm happy to have no cantankerous players. The last time the game got halted due to "what would happen?" was on a matter of quantum physics and a bit of online research somewhat answered the question.

    The advantage of the interwebs
    You may be blessed with a perfect group, but most groups are not like that. Basing a system on your example is not a good idea.

  • #33
    Moderator-Class Vessel
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)

    Lwaxy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,544
    Blog Entries
    5

    ° Ignore Lwaxy
    I'd think that, before a campaign, a GM would do some research as to possible issues, but that's probably not really the case.

    I haven't ever had a GM who decided without consistency, or twisted logic. Question is indeed what to do with those (other than leaving the group) if they have to use logic a lot.

    How many of you had to deal with a confusing GM before, or one who got swayed by the most outspoken player?
    My Story Hour campaigns. What are they up to this week?

  • #34
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Johnny3D3D's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claysburg
    Posts
    2,152

    ° Ignore Johnny3D3D
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget View Post
    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 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by innerdude View Post
    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.
    .
    Yeah, imagine how awesome it would be if you could take everything 3rd Edition could do, but then make the rules more flexible and consistent -say making everything a roll of 3d6 and comparing the result to your skill or ability in the relevant area. Then maybe you could settle opposed checks by doing the same thing and comparing the margins of success so as to create an experience which is more flexible and less binary; beating the opponent by two might mean something different than beating the opponent by ten. That would be a pretty sweet game.

  • #35
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Zuerich
    Posts
    1,804
    Blog Entries
    11

    ° Ignore Fenes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lwaxy View Post
    I'd think that, before a campaign, a GM would do some research as to possible issues, but that's probably not really the case.

    I haven't ever had a GM who decided without consistency, or twisted logic. Question is indeed what to do with those (other than leaving the group) if they have to use logic a lot.

    How many of you had to deal with a confusing GM before, or one who got swayed by the most outspoken player?
    Honestly, I think you underestimate the potential for disputes by a lot. It's not a GM deciding with twisted logic that's the real problem, it's player and GM not agreeing about what is logical - especially in cases where you can't simply research a fact on the internet, such as fantasy "physics" or fantasy socioeconomics.

  • #36
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Mustrum_Ridcully's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Oldenburg
    Posts
    15,033
    Blog Entries
    32

    ° Ignore Mustrum_Ridcully
    Quote Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz View Post
    Funny you should say that, KM!
    And I thought we were still taking about swinging axes!

    Quote Originally Posted by fenes
    In my experience, rolling dice is often better suited to solving disputes or disagreements over consequences of an action than "logical discussion". Or in other words - if everyone agrees you don't need rules. But if not everyone agrees, a reliable method of resolution is needed. I'd rather have a lot of examples/guidelines for actions so there's more of a common ground, not just leaving it all up to the GM. What is especially needed is a rule for cases when you pitch skill against skill.
    Rolling dice certainly doesn't help with solving a logical dispute, for example what kind of resolution method (rule or ruling) should be used to represent a game world event.
    Mustrum "Gummibńrchen helfen auch" Ridcully

    Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World
    - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas

    Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>

  • #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget View Post
    Balance concerns figure into this, too. Relying on the DM means subtle personality quirks and rules opinions can drastically swing the play experience. One DM things wizards are teh overpowerdz, so she uses her powers of interpretation to nerf every spell into ineffectiveness (the "Charm Person makes them your friend, but this goblin loves to stab his friends!" kind of DM). Another DM thinks wizards SHOULD be the most powerful of all ever, so she uses HER powers of interpretation to make wizards always the best choice (the "Charm Person gives you a loyal peon for life, and no one else can convince an NPC of anything" kind of DM).

    You can give DMs all the advice and guidance you want, and not eliminate this problem, because much of it lies in the realm of emotion and opinion, and not fact and reason.
    But aren't those two DMs extremely polarized examples? I would think most DMs fall into the middle and adjudicate fairly and sensibly.
    "If you die first, we're splitting up your gear" - SkidAce
    "Just because you don't like it, don't understand it, and can't explain it, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. "- Celebrim
    "D&D is amazingly flexible, so there is no one well-accepted set of expectations there, and I've seen no evidence that there ever were." - Umbran


  • #38
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Zuerich
    Posts
    1,804
    Blog Entries
    11

    ° Ignore Fenes
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully View Post
    Rolling dice certainly doesn't help with solving a logical dispute, for example what kind of resolution method (rule or ruling) should be used to represent a game world event.
    What kind of game world event do you mean? An earthquake? I usually am concerned about the consequences of an earthquake, since whether or not the building a PC is inside collapses is usually not easily decided through logic. Rolling a die there is often a fast and accepted method to decide.

  • #39
    Potassium-Rich Moderator
    A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)

    Kamikaze Midget's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,127
    Blog Entries
    24

    ° Ignore Kamikaze Midget
    Quote Originally Posted by SkidAce
    But aren't those two DMs extremely polarized examples? I would think most DMs fall into the middle and adjudicate fairly and sensibly.
    I don't think they are as outlying as we might want to believe. Look at any conversation about alignment, or the Wish spell, or about artifacts. Or just about damage-on-a-miss. Most DMs have SOME preconcieved notions about how X, Y, or Z SHOULD work, and so we're going to have DMs limit or empower things based on their own preferences.

    Which, in a certain light, is a good thing. If you have a DM who hates wizards, you just can't play a wizard. But there needs to be a way to avoid a player being a wizard who then doesn't have fun as a wizard because their DM hates wizards, but doesn't just ban them for some reason.
    -- Jacob J Driscoll, Unsleeping---
    "A one inch mound of flesh with a scar running down it"

    PS5e v. 0.1: Faction Backgrounds
    Tieflings (& other planetouched) | Bariaur | Githzerai | Outcaste Modron
    FINAL FANTASY ZERO
    finalfantasyzero.wikidot.com

  • #40
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Johnny3D3D's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claysburg
    Posts
    2,152

    ° Ignore Johnny3D3D
    As a designer and a world builder, I like Monte; I respect his work.

    However, I'm often curious if he has much experience outside of D&D and the D20 family. A lot of his musings; things he discusses in his blogs, and etc feel to me as though his mind would greatly benefit from taking a look at how some other games handle things. A lot of what he's looking for is done (and done very well) by games which are on the market and actively supported right now already.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 7
      Last Post: Monday, 24th June, 2013, 07:14 PM
    2. The logic of OAs
      By RangerWickett in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 28
      Last Post: Friday, 28th May, 2010, 09:43 PM
    3. The Logic (or Lack of) in D&D
      By Olaf the Stout in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 60
      Last Post: Friday, 9th March, 2007, 09:41 AM
    4. Circular Logic FAQ
      By Exquisite Dead Guy in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: Monday, 18th September, 2006, 03:46 AM
    5. Some Thoughts on Logic
      By Tharivious_Meliamne in forum ISRP General Chit Chat
      Replies: 27
      Last Post: Friday, 30th January, 2004, 01:08 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
    •