Monte on Logic in RPGs

[Chalice]

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.

I remember reading that 3.5 was in fact planned from the very start. If so, this places it (and Monte Cook, et al) in a rather different light, I think.

In addition, various mechanical options were deliberately "sabotaged", so as to function as "newbie traps", apparently. Another gem!

But please, don't mistake my post as representing hatred of 3rd edition, or its creators - it is, after all, the game I am running.

 

[MarkB]

One pitfall of this approach not mentioned in the article is the degree of power it gives persuasive players. I've seen players who are able to sell GMs on pretty much any course of action with a few well-chosen suggestions, and others who are too self-effacing to speak up for themselves when they want to try something (frequently both in the same game).

It's a pitfall that a strong GM can mitigate, but it takes more than merely an informed GM to do so.

 

[eyebeams]

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.

I'd rather make entertaining decisions based on the emotional vibe at the table, than rational decisions based on the depersonalized elements of a system or described scenario.

 

[Fenes]

The problem Monte doesn't even mention is that "logical" has different meanings for people. People have different expectations depending on their own experiences and education. One of my players is a fireman. He has much more experience with fire and burning houses than I do. What I may consider a "logical ruling" regarding the effects of fire he might consider absurd. I was in the army, another player was not. What I might consider the logical effects of encumbrance he might consider absurd. And so on.

 

[Lwaxy]

That's why I usually ask the expert players in such cases

 

[Fenes]

That's why I usually ask the expert players in such cases

Sometimes there are only wanna-be experts though. And once you enter the realms of fantasy, things are even more prone to lead to disputes. Should elves have some inherent advantages? Dwarves? What should a certain spell do to rock and wood? What's the effect of keeping an enemy from resting? And so on.

 

[Lwaxy]

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

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

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?

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.

That would be something of an ideal, achieving the balance I mentioned before.

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.

This again is ideal, but as KM pointed out, it relies greatly upon the DM. The DM is the ultimate applier of the rules, and if the DM is inconsistent then the player can't base their actions on a consistent application of the rules. This is what tends to lead toward more codification rather than less.

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.

That's an interesting possibility. It could also be that as one of three designers, the system didn't end up as he would have preferred it. I think your suggestion is probably more likely.

One pitfall of this approach not mentioned in the article is the degree of power it gives persuasive players. I've seen players who are able to sell GMs on pretty much any course of action with a few well-chosen suggestions, and others who are too self-effacing to speak up for themselves when they want to try something (frequently both in the same game).

Absolutely. I've had this happen in a game, where one player was such a dominant personality that the DM would always be persuaded by his suggestions and we got away with a lot of crazy stuff. Now, it was still a fun game, because the player only used his powers for good, so to speak, but it strongly affected the dynamic of the game.

The problem Monte doesn't even mention is that "logical" has different meanings for people. People have different expectations depending on their own experiences and education.

That's true, he did say that logical can mean different things to different groups, but didn't address intra-group disagreement on what it is.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

Aside from a few spells (like Charm Person, Command, Knock, Hold Portal, etc.), yeah, absolutely!

4e did have some of those "noncombat spells" in the rituals system, but the rituals system had some major problems of its own. Not unsolvable problems, just problems that contributed to people not really wanting to use it.

That would be something of an ideal, achieving the balance I mentioned before.

I think Page 42 gets us the closest that D&D has been to such a thing. A broad rule, with some fine granularity, to handle improvisational attacks. Now, if it was made more robust (including conditions, and in a system where your class abilities aren't always a better option) and expanded (to include things other than attacks), it would be quite the excellent framework.

 

[Fenes]

That's true, he did say that logical can mean different things to different groups, but didn't address intra-group disagreement on what it is.

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.