Monte on Logic in RPGs

Lwaxy said:

How many of you had to deal with a confusing GM before, or one who got swayed by the most outspoken player?

Click to expand...

Confusing GM? Not often. Confused GM - often enough for me to at least consider them.

GM swayed by the most outspoken player? Frequently. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease," seems to me a truism of human experience.

Johnny3D3D said:

However, I'm often curious if he has much experience outside of D&D and the D20 family.

Click to expand...

He got his start working for Iron Crown Enterprises working on Rolemaster. I think after ICE, he went to TSR though.

The key bit for me is the comments on writing good GM advice. Without it, a "logic-based" game is nothing but a designer cop out.

That advice has to do at least two things:

• Talk about all the possible bases of logic for the game in question (e.g. the realism, cinematic, particular story, whatever this game is intended to support) - and then guide the GM and players in how to pick a mix and stick with it.
• Now having a particular base or mix of bases, give good advice on how to apply the more flexible rules to this logic.

Then on top of that, I don't see how you really teach that in a book without many, extensive examples. (It's also possible the some video presentations or other media outside the books might also be helpful--as an alternate to having someone experienced teach it directly.)

Finally, the designers and developers of the game must attempt to mitigate their own illogical biases when producing all this. No small order, that. Sometimes they don't see the need for more advice or examples or instructions--because they've got some assumed "logic" of how it must work enshrined in the rules, and it really doesn't make much sense. At the very least, such embedded logic needs to be ruthlessly deconstructed enough to explain it in the design notes.

This is why I keep echoing a famed VB reviewer: "More examples, damn it!" Having the examples is important to convey how the game works. Writing the examples is important to make sure the game does what the designers thinks it does.

seems like 5e is heavily influenced by those principles.

And 4e, as well as 3e have problems of being overdesigned.

He gives examples of both editions:

- NPC creation is a problem in 3e. 4e is fine here.

- Washing off tickling powder is a problem in 4e. No matter what you do, you need to make your safe next turn, and there is nothing you caan do. Beeing set on fire can be countered in 3e by rolling on the floor and jumping into water.

So his arguments are founded by experience of both editions.

I hope 5e designers will keep both examples in mind. And to me, from all the comments i´ve read, it seems as if Monter represents the whole 5e team, although he has left the ship.

So thanks for this great article.

Cook is totally on point here. I couldn't agree more.

Isn't part of this a conflict in demands between players and DMs.

The player wants rules light character creation, so as not to inhibit his design. While the DM wants rules heavy to restrict the character power.
The player also wants rules heavy during game play to know what to expect. While the DM wants rules light , so as not to be restricted on his decisions or adventure design.

Crazy Jerome said:

The key bit for me is the comments on writing good GM advice. Without it, a "logic-based" game is nothing but a designer cop out.

That advice has to do at least two things:

• Talk about all the possible bases of logic for the game in question (e.g. the realism, cinematic, particular story, whatever this game is intended to support) - and then guide the GM and players in how to pick a mix and stick with it.
• Now having a particular base or mix of bases, give good advice on how to apply the more flexible rules to this logic.

Then on top of that, I don't see how you really teach that in a book without many, extensive examples. (It's also possible the some video presentations or other media outside the books might also be helpful--as an alternate to having someone experienced teach it directly.)

Finally, the designers and developers of the game must attempt to mitigate their own illogical biases when producing all this. No small order, that. Sometimes they don't see the need for more advice or examples or instructions--because they've got some assumed "logic" of how it must work enshrined in the rules, and it really doesn't make much sense. At the very least, such embedded logic needs to be ruthlessly deconstructed enough to explain it in the design notes.

This is why I keep echoing a famed VB reviewer: "More examples, damn it!" Having the examples is important to convey how the game works. Writing the examples is important to make sure the game does what the designers thinks it does.

Click to expand...

I think what it is ultimately about is the system estabishing a clear pattern that is easy to predict so the GM can intuit the most logical mechanical resolution for any action not covered by the rules. Examples help but really it comes down to two things: making a logical core system and having a solid GM-Player line of communication. It isn't for everyone, but I vastly prefer the kind of play Cook is describing to the alternative.

I liked the article for its positivity but I think it portrays an ideal which, for me, raised questions upon closer examination.

..if a simple NPC suddenly needed a stat that it was not provided with, the GM could adjudicate the situation fairly and easily.

Click to expand...

For example, Monte asserts that this can be done 'fairly and easily'. I'm less sure of that. Fairness is as much a perception as a thing. It's true I can easily decide an NPC has access to Dispel Magic. Whether it's perceived as fair or not is another matter.

For a game where the GM makes rulings, the onus is on the GM to maintain continuity.

It's also important that the rules present themselves in such a way that the GM isn't providing "permission," he's adjudicating.

Click to expand...

These are highlighted as pitfalls. Monte doesn't call out solutions to them, although he does stress the need for 'solid GM advice.'

Personally, I think rpgs needs more than advice - they need procedure; how we play this thing right now at the table.

I'm thinking of things like:

- When you want your character to act, describe what he or she does and what he or she intends to achieve

- Never call for a roll unless the outcome matters to the player

- When you call for a roll tell the player what the outcome of success will be and the outcome of failure. The player may always reconsider before the dice are rolled.

These aren't mechanics and they aren't advice. They tell us what we're actually meant to do at the table with this specific game to get the fun the designer intended. A bit more on that here: anyway.

I don't say my procedures are the best for a game of AD&D, or 4e, just examples of the kind of thing I think every rpg should include - tailor made for that game.

Bedrockgames said:

I think what it is ultimately about is the system estabishing a clear pattern that is easy to predict so the GM can intuit the most logical mechanical resolution for any action not covered by the rules. Examples help but really it comes down to two things: making a logical core system and having a solid GM-Player line of communication. It isn't for everyone, but I vastly prefer the kind of play Cook is describing to the alternative.

Click to expand...

Same thing: I find myself in complete agreement with Monte Cook. The rules-tight paradigm is in such an opposition to the kind of things I am looking for in a role playing game (a social game, a game of creativity and shared imagination that relies on the cooperation of the players, a game that you come to own for yourself and twist and tweak as needed, a game of rulings, not rules, a game with a GM as a referee and facilitator of game play, not an enemy the rules ought to keep in check, etc.) I might as well not play games subjected to it at all.

Rules-tight game systems basically turn role playing games into 'games like any other' to me. I find them immensely boring and counter-intuitive to the strengths I see in RPGs. I'd sooner play Halo, Call of Duty or World of Warcraft rather than subject myself to them.

PS: I'm a fan of games like AD&D First Ed, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, Rolemaster, World of Darkness games, Call of Cthulhu and BRP games, so I really don't see this as a 'rules light v. rules heavy' thing at all. It's all about the logic behind the game and how it's built from there.

Fenes said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rolling a die is EXACTLY where the debate begins between players and GM. Now obviously, the buck stops at the GM, but the players are going to object and wheedle against any resolution proposal by the GM that they think doesn't resolve it properly.

By properly, we mean, in a way the players think gives them an advantage, properly a rightful advantage.

Take this other quote:

chaochou said:

For example, Monte asserts that this can be done 'fairly and easily'. I'm less sure of that. Fairness is as much a perception as a thing. It's true I can easily decide an NPC has access to Dispel Magic. Whether it's perceived as fair or not is another matter.

Click to expand...

The DM is making a decision off the cuff on whether the NPC just happens to have Dispel Magic, because he didn't fully flesh out the NPC before hand. The question comes up, most likely because the PCs are trying to hurt him and thus they are deeply invested in wanting the reality where he doesn't have the spell.

So, once again, the nature of how the GM chooses to resolve or determine the outcome and nature of reality can be hotly contested by the players.
The players would prefer the NPC's spell list be set before combat, so that the DM can't invent counters to what the PCs do by virture of it having not been defined yet.

Barring crappy DMs who just do crappy things, even a good DM, who adlibs may subconciously bias his adlibbing creations. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] had a whole slew of Shroedinger's fine products and what was wrong with them in a thread from a while back.

Getting back to that earthquake. The GM decides to just use a 50/50 chance to see if the PC survives. The player balks at that, because they used to live in LA, and they know their animal companion would have sensed it first, the PC is really strong so could have held up a ceiling, the PC is really fast and could have rushed to a door frame, the house's materials aren't even that heavy to do much damage, the PC's dwarvish background would have indicated this structure was earthquake-resilient anyway, and so on. To the player, this whole situation needs a more complex and comprehensive resolution mechanic. Possibly even multiple rolls to simulate all the factors that are going on.

Suffice it to say, the act of a DM "just deciding" is a major source of rules debates.