Monte on Logic in RPGs

[Fifth Element]

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.

 

[Fenes]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Argyle King]

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.

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.

 

[Fenes]

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.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Funny you should say that, KM!

And I thought we were still taking about swinging axes!

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.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

 

[Fenes]

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

 

[Argyle King]

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.