Monte on Logic in RPGs

Stalker0 said:

To me, computer games have taken the debate out of this topic.

When it comes to tight, clearcut rulesets...you can't beat Computer Games and MMOS.

The only real place that RPGs have left to compete is around the DM.

Click to expand...

I don't get this viewpoint. You seem to be coming from an assumption that a successful tabletop RPG can and must compete against computer games, that in order to be viable it must differentiate itself from them right down to the ruleset.

I'm not sure where that comes from. Computer games, even RPGs, even MMOs, provide a very different playing experience than tabletop RPGs, regardless of ruleset.

I've played and enjoyed RPGs with highly codified rulesets, and others with much lighter and looser rulesets. I've also played plenty of computer games. And for me, at least, computer games don't provide the same experience or scratch the same itches that even the most tightly-ruled tabletop RPGs do.

I don't think there's any need for tabletop RPGs to take their cues from computer RPGs. But neither do I see any need for them to make an effort to deliberately differentiate themselves from computer RPGs. The medium does that just fine.

MarkB said:

You seem to be coming from an assumption that a successful tabletop RPG can and must compete against computer games, that in order to be viable it must differentiate itself from them right down to the ruleset.

Click to expand...

They absolutely do, just as they compete with Sporting Events, Movies, and any other form of entertainment that costs money.

The difference here is that computer games provide much of the same entertainment value as RPGs. You can play a character, enjoy a fantasy or futuristic setting, and the classic "kill monsters and take their stuff".

So I do believe Computer Games are a direct competitor to RPGs for a large portion of the populace. And when faced with competition, differencing your brand is a key component.

dkyle said:

Sure you can. Many board games have much tighter, cleaner, and clearer designs than computer games and MMOs.

Click to expand...

And WOTC has taken that to heart, releasing several board game versions of dnd which (I hope) have been successful.

But those board games aren't pen and paper RPGs, just as computer game and MMOs aren't P&P RPgs.

The difference remains, the interpretive DM.



Now I think I know where a lot of the argument is stemming from. The assumption is that tighter rules = less imaginative play. And in a vacuum I would also question that premise, and I have in the past many times. I myself enjoy crafting rigorous and solid rulesets.

But at least in my own experience, that premise has played out. I have seen far more imaginative and creative play in rules lite systems than I have rules heavy ones, even with the same players and run by the same DM.

Fifth Element said:

I don't agree. In 1E, the only rules that were codified were combat rules (other than magic). Did 1E encourage you to get into a fight to solve your problems?

Click to expand...

I didn't get to play 1E back in the day, but my understanding is that combat rules did not always favor the PCs (non-balanced encounters, deadly effects, etc.) and that was the main incentive to avoid fair fights and instead fall back on tactics that require GM arbitration. (I'm told that awarding XP for gold pushed the game in this direction too.)

Allowing that my understanding is correct, I'm not sure how salient this is to KM's hammer/nails analogy--if all you have is a hammer that explodes in your face when you use it, you avoid viewing your problems as nails?

Crazy Jerome said:

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'm in total agreement. And give us examples that illustrate awesome gameplay, rather than interesting rule quirks. The example play at the beginning of the 2E PHB is a great example of the kind of thing I'd love to see more of: tense, dramatic, and fun to read.

Kamikaze Midget said:

People need hooks to hang their characters on, and DMs need hooks to hang their arbitration on, and no amount of text in a rulebook is going to train a good DM. Only experience does that. Experience using those hooks and examples and rules as training wheels to get to the point where they can confidently ignore them, if they want to.

Click to expand...

Actual history might disagree with you here. Its easy in today's world of having a plethora of rules heavy training wheels systems to lose sight of the fact that many GMs learned through experience without the benefit of these training tools.

I know because I am one of them. During my first few years of play, all I had rules wise was 128 pages of the Basic & Expert sets and no extended online community to ask for help. These rules only covered the most fundamental and basic facets of play. Everything else was supplied by the gaming group.

What would things have been like if I had a set of 3E core books in 1980? Would I be as flexible a GM as I am now if I learned from a more heavily codified ruleset or would the result be closer to the opposite?

Part of the problem I think lies in the expectation the players have of their GMs. Back in the day none of us knew what the heck we were doing at first and both players and DM got a bunch of stuff wrong. It was fun anyway. I think there is too much pressure on fledgling GMs these days to perform and "get it right". The GM is after all, just another person and sometimes just the guy who drew the short straw. Rules adherence and procedural fixation can sometimes blind us that this is supposed to be fun.

As Monte points out in his post, the logic in use by a particular group of players will vary from table to table. Procedural hand holding rules text may be applicable for one approach to logic but ends up being confusing for a group that uses another approach.

Odysseus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Could be, it depends. For example, the reverse could be just as true.

The player wants intensive rules during character creation to model exactly the sort of character they've envisioned. The DM would prefer rules-light chargen so they can jump right into the game, and so PC deaths don't de-rail the game for long.
The player wants rules light gameplay because they don't want to be bothered with a bunch of fiddly details that limit how awesome they can be (or just take up extra head space). Conversely the DM would prefer intensive rules at the table so that he or she doesn't need to make many "rules decisions" and can focus on the story and NPCs.

dkyle said:

If the article isn't addressing that problem, then I really have no idea what it is addressing.

Click to expand...

Monte is talking more about rules in play than character generation, but this was the first easy example that sprang to mind:

1. If the game author provides an elf class that is always a fighter/magic user mix, because the game is rather simple, and that covers what the author wanted to do, then that's implicitly rules as logic. The rule works this way because the author envision the world this way. If you want to change the logic of that, and do an elf as fighter/cleric, you can decide how to go about that.

2. If the game author divides races and classes, so that an elf can be any class, then that is more akin to a more formal set of rules for every situation. You can mix and match because the game tells you how.

3. If then on top of that, the author restricts certain race and class combos for balance reasons, key game presentation flavor reasons, etc, then that's back to logic. If you want to change this, it's up to you to determine what the side effects will be, compared to the game as provided.

That's all fine. You can draw the line in different places depending on how it interacts with the rest of the game, but it's a consideration either way. Most games are going to be somewhat of a mix, anyway, though some will have a definite lean overall and in key spots.

4. Then we come to something like, the game author has it wide open with race and classes, so that any elf can be any class, and it will work, but some people don't like that. So they advocate for some of those restrictions. That's them hiding behind rules.

Given a random game, it's sometimes difficult to tell those last two apart, from the outside looking in. Yet #3 can be good while #4 is ultimately lousy, as it is encroaching on the design, without providiing the benefits of either the logic approach or the systemized rules approach--except perhaps by accident. Catering to the "hide me" crowd will make the systemized rules messier and obscure the logic too.

Stalker0 said:

And WOTC has taken that to heart, releasing several board game versions of dnd which (I hope) have been successful.

But those board games aren't pen and paper RPGs, just as computer game and MMOs aren't P&P RPgs.

The difference remains, the interpretive DM.

Click to expand...

Of course there's that difference.

What I don't understand is how that somehow makes clear, tight rules undesirable. Less absolutely necessary? Sure. The DM can play game designer, patch over missing stuff, and fix bugs. But that doesn't mean that forcing the DM to design rules is a good thing.

This is also where "rulings not rules" breaks down if you also want consistency (as Monte says is very important). Consistent rulings are rules. They're just rules invented by the DM, on the spot, and likely to be poorly remembered from session to session. Why that should be expected to be better than rules carefully crafted by professionals, and well presented in a book, is beyond me.

Now I think I know where a lot of the argument is stemming from. The assumption is that tighter rules = less imaginative play. And in a vacuum I would also question that premise, and I have in the past many times. I myself enjoy crafting rigorous and solid rulesets.

But at least in my own experience, that premise has played out. I have seen far more imaginative and creative play in rules lite systems than I have rules heavy ones, even with the same players and run by the same DM.

Click to expand...

Good rules light systems are very rules tight. Monte is not talking about rules light systems. He's talking about "not rules".

"You have itchy powder on you, take it from there!" is not "rules light". It's "not rules".

"You have itchy powder on you, which applies an aspect", where aspects have clear, specific rules (as in Fate), is "rules light", and "rules tight".

"You have itchy powder on you. It gives -3 to rolls, and takes 2 turns, and a resistance roll to remove", is heavier rules, but not significantly more or less tight than the aspect.

Crazy Jerome said:

Monte is talking more about rules in play than character generation, but this was the first easy example that sprang to mind:

1. If the game author provides an elf class that is always a fighter/magic user mix, because the game is rather simple, and that covers what the author wanted to do, then that's implicitly rules as logic. The rule works this way because the author envision the world this way. If you want to change the logic of that, and do an elf as fighter/cleric, you can decide how to go about that.

2. If the game author divides races and classes, so that an elf can be any class, then that is more akin to a more formal set of rules for every situation. You can mix and match because the game tells you how.

3. If then on top of that, the author restricts certain race and class combos for balance reasons, key game presentation flavor reasons, etc, then that's back to logic. If you want to change this, it's up to you to determine what the side effects will be, compared to the game as provided.

That's all fine. You can draw the line in different places depending on how it interacts with the rest of the game, but it's a consideration either way. Most games are going to be somewhat of a mix, anyway, though some will have a definite lean overall and in key spots.

Click to expand...

Those are all concrete rules. I'm not seeing any real distinction other than how flexible of rules the designer decided to make. The flexibility of a ruleset is tangential to how tight it is. Any of those rules can be played as-is, or houseruled into something else. Any of those rules can exist for game design/balance, or in-world logic reasons.

What Monte seems to be advocating is more "You're an elf! Now play what that logically means." and leaving it at that. None of your options are that.

4. Then we come to something like, the game author has it wide open with race and classes, so that any elf can be any class, and it will work, but some people don't like that. So they advocate for some of those restrictions. That's them hiding behind rules.

Given a random game, it's sometimes difficult to tell those last two apart, from the outside looking in. Yet #3 can be good while #4 is ultimately lousy, as it is encroaching on the design, without providiing the benefits of either the logic approach or the systemized rules approach--except perhaps by accident. Catering to the "hide me" crowd will make the systemized rules messier and obscure the logic too.

Click to expand...

OK, sure, but I'm not seeing what this has to do with Monte's essay.

dkyle said:

Also, the section on "GM may I?" dodges the issue. There is no real difference between "May I do X" and "Does it seem possible for my character to do X".

Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that too. It pays lip service to the problem, but doesn't demonstrate any route to a solution.

dkyle said:

If the answer to the question is based on GM "logic" and fiat, and not on game mechanics, then it is asking the GM for permission, either way.

Click to expand...

I probably misunderstand what you mean by 'mechanics'. The fundamental way to solve the 'Is it possible to do X?' permission problem is by not having players ask the question. I don't think mechanics achieve that - it requires certain play procedures, a structure for player authority, open stake setting, stuff like that.

Of course, that may be what you meant by 'mechanics'.

chaochou said:

I probably misunderstand what you mean by 'mechanics'. The fundamental way to solve the 'Is it possible to do X?' permission problem is by not having players ask the question. I don't think mechanics achieve that - it requires certain play procedures, a structure for player authority, open stake setting, stuff like that.

Of course, that may be what you meant by 'mechanics'.

Click to expand...

Well, there are always going to be rules questions. Not everyone has perfect system mastery. But there's a big difference between the DM giving a player a clarification or reminder of the existing rules, and inventing new rules on the spot.