Monte Cook on what rules are for

[pemerton]

In his latest column, Monte Cook says

The game needs rules. They form the basis of the shared reality that allows everyone to participate in the same game.​

Monte says this as if it's uncontroversial, but I'm not sure that it is.

I don't deny that the game needs rules. But is the purpose of the rules to form the basis of the shared reality among the participants?

Here is another view on the purpose of rules, from Vincent Baker:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game ... have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not...

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

The difference between these two view matters to design. It helps explain the difference between (for example) 3E and 4e. It also explains the difference, in AD&D, between rolling to open a door (if you make the roll, your PC was able to muscle open the stuck door) and rolling a saving throw (if you make the roll, you and/or the GM have liberty to explain how it was that the threat to your PC was avoided/negated).

I think it would be a pity for WotC to lock it itself into a simulationist approach to mechanics by default, rather than because a deliberate view has been formed that this is what is best for the game.

Others' views?

 

[delericho]

The difference between these two view matters to design. It helps explain the difference between (for example) 3E and 4e. It also explains the difference, in AD&D, between rolling to open a door (if you make the roll, your PC was able to muscle open the stuck door) and rolling a saving throw (if you make the roll, you and/or the GM have liberty to explain how it was that the threat to your PC was avoided/negated).

I think it would be a pity for WotC to lock it itself into a simulationist approach to mechanics by default, rather than because a deliberate view has been formed that this is what is best for the game.

I think that's the crux of it. Monte seems very much to be in the simulationist camp, while the designers of 4e were much more gamist-orientated.

Personally, I'm more or less simulationist, with the caveat that I'm looking for a "good enough" simulation, rather than an exhaustive one.

I'd also note that traditional D&D seemed to confound the three-fold model by offering a little of something for everyone, while not cleaving to any of the axes very closely. I think D&D is probably at its strongest when in that position - that way, it is what the group make of it. 3e was probably too simulationist, while 4e is definitely too gamist for my tastes.

 

[tomBitonti]

In his latest column, Monte Cook says

The game needs rules. They form the basis of the shared reality that allows everyone to participate in the same game.​

Monte says this as if it's uncontroversial, but I'm not sure that it is.

I don't deny that the game needs rules. But is the purpose of the rules to form the basis of the shared reality among the participants?

Here is another view on the purpose of rules, from Vincent Baker:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game ... have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not...

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

The difference between these two view matters to design. It helps explain the difference between (for example) 3E and 4e. It also explains the difference, in AD&D, between rolling to open a door (if you make the roll, your PC was able to muscle open the stuck door) and rolling a saving throw (if you make the roll, you and/or the GM have liberty to explain how it was that the threat to your PC was avoided/negated).

I think it would be a pity for WotC to lock it itself into a simulationist approach to mechanics by default, rather than because a deliberate view has been formed that this is what is best for the game.

Others' views?

My initial response is to pick at the language of the statements: With slight modifications, both statements seem to be true, and applicable, in degrees, to different instances of role playing games.

Instead of:

The game needs rules. They form the basis of the shared reality that allows everyone to participate in the same game.​

Most games need rules. They help form the basis of the shared reality that allows everyone to participate in the same game.​

And similarly. The statements are controvertible because they are too narrowly stated. They allow very little room for independent but equally valid truths.

"Is-so" "is-not-so" types of analysis seem to get trivial and boring rather fast. I'd rather look at "to-what-degree-so".

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

My second response, going past language issues, is to look more closely at the key assertions. These seem to be:

They [the rules] form the basis of the shared reality.​

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination.​

Setting aside the imbroglio of simulation, those two statements show a clear dichotomy.

As an example, in 3.5E (not needing 4E here), one can move 30' in a single move. Or, can move further if they run. There is absolutely no negotiation here: Walk or run. You can't stretch a move by 5' and say, take a -2 penalty on the followup action.

TomB

 

[Balesir]

I think this is a bit semantic-y; what Vincent says is "negotiation" seems to me like you are making rules - negotiating the rules for the synchronisation of the various visions/models of the "shared imagined space", as it were. If no rule exists it's negotiation, sure - but once a "norm" is set you will tend to assume it unless there is pressing need not to.

I wrote a post on the Wizards' boards here that contains an essay length blurb around my thoughts on this

Suffice to say I don't think it's exclusively a Simulationist concern - Sim just wanders around it as a topic all its own rather than just defining what it needs to do.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination.​

I'd say that roleplaying is playing a role. That is, it's getting immersed in the character, getting into that character's mindset, and making decisions purely as that character. I know you disagree. I'm okay with that.

In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game ... have to understand and assent to it.​

Yeah, I suppose it a really roundabout way. When I'm running a game, when I say that something is true in the game, it's true in the game. When someone else is running a game, the same is true when they say it.

If a player disagrees with me, I'm willing to hear him out, but I make the call, not him. If I rule that something's true, and he disagrees, he has two options: accept it but not like it, or leave the game. So, yeah, he either accepts it and is in the game, or he doesn't accept it (and is no longer playing the game). I'm not sure why that specifically needs to be stated, though, as it seems self-evident to me. Then again, it's just for my style, and this wouldn't be true of much more narrative play styles.

When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not...​

When we roleplay, a player suggests an action he'd like his PC to take (usually in-character), and then the GM determines the outcome (potentially based off of one or more die rolls). If this is what he's trying to say, then sure. If he's means convincing the other players (and not just the GM), then yeah, no, it doesn't fit with me. Again, true in a more narrative play style, or a shared storytelling experience. If he does mean convincing everyone (and not just the GM), then it's either the same as my last paragraph (it seems obvious to me), or that it's wrong as a blanket statement (like you're implying Monte Cook is in his article).

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

Yeah, no. They exist to model stuff in the game world, as well as to give a common ground to everyone at the table, PC and GM alike. What he's saying is true of a more narrative play style, but it's most certainly wrong as a blanket statement (much like what I think you're saying is the case about Monte Cook).

Others' views?

Feel free to disagree with mine. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I think this is a bit semantic-y

<snip>

I wrote a post on the Wizards' boards here that contains an essay length blurb around my thoughts on this

I read your post, but I don't agree that it is merely a semantic issue. I think there is a difference between:

(i) rules that tell us what the gameworld looks like/contains within it (as per your essay, this will only be at a certain level of shared understanding - not every detail will be filled in by the rules);

(ii) rules that tell us who gets to say what the gameworld looks like/contains within it (perhaps subject to certain constraints).

The difference also matters to PC building. Under the first approach, my PC's skill bonus corresponds in a definite way to some quantifiable capability as a fictional person. On the second approach, my PC's skill bonus indicates that, in scenes where that particular skill is relevant, I have a better chance of being able to narrate a certain sort of success by my PC.

I should add, I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive (and nor does Vincent Baker's comment imply that they are - quite the contrary). The Burning Wheel is one example that emphasises both. Character skill bonuses in BW correspond to a definite, quantifiable capability. But they also correspond to narrative power for the player - because of the "intent and task" rules, when I succeed at a skill check using my PC's skill in some applicable task, it is not just that the task occurs, but I am licensed to narrate the success of my intent. And if I fail, the GM is also encouraged not to focus on failure of the task, but on failure of the intent. This sort of approach to the mechanics, and their relationship to the fiction, does not seem to be contemplated by Monte Cook's statement.

 

[Desdichado]

In his latest column, Monte Cook says

The game needs rules. They form the basis of the shared reality that allows everyone to participate in the same game.​

Monte says this as if it's uncontroversial, but I'm not sure that it is.

I believe that it is. It doesn't mean, as you assert, that Monte Cook is taking a simulationist approach to the game, it merely means that all of the players involved are playing the same game and have the same expectations for how the game reality behaves. That's just as true if you're playing a simulationist game like Rolemaster or something like that, or a completely gamist game like Chess or Clue.

Here is another view on the purpose of rules, from Vincent Baker:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game ... have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not...

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

The difference between these two view matters to design. It helps explain the difference between (for example) 3E and 4e. It also explains the difference, in AD&D, between rolling to open a door (if you make the roll, your PC was able to muscle open the stuck door) and rolling a saving throw (if you make the roll, you and/or the GM have liberty to explain how it was that the threat to your PC was avoided/negated).

I don't see how that quote means what you claim it means. In fact, I'm not even sure what it means, to be honest with you. Attempting to open the door and negotiating with the other players whether something is true in game or not seem to be two completely different fields of endeavor to me. I also don't see how the two quotes map to any particular edition of D&D; from my perspective, the purpose of rules in a game of D&D has remained unchanged regardless of edition. The main things that have changed with regards to rules are 1) how detailed vs. how basic they need to be (i.e., give control to the GM to make rulings vs. pull back that control and hardwire it into the structure of the game), 2) make rules systematic and consistent in application vs. willy-nilly and arbitrary in terms of how they're structured (focus on d20 rolls with modifiers to hit a target number vs. all kinds of unrelated and different subsystems to resolve different things that may come up).

I think it would be a pity for WotC to lock it itself into a simulationist approach to mechanics by default, rather than because a deliberate view has been formed that this is what is best for the game.

Others' views?

That seems a curious comment to me, since from my perspective, D&D has had a simulationist focus since the printing of AD&D at least, and only with 4e did it make a really conscious effort to migrate to a more gamist focus on the rules.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I believe that it is. It doesn't mean, as you assert, that Monte Cook is taking a simulationist approach to the game, it merely means that all of the players involved are playing the same game and have the same expectations for how the game reality behaves. That's just as true if you're playing a simulationist game like Rolemaster or something like that, or a completely gamist game like Chess or Clue.

I think this is probably correct, in the same way that, in Forge terms, "the system" is the whole thing being done at the table in actual play, not merely the printed rules or explicit house rules.

That seems a curious comment to me, since from my perspective, D&D has had a simulationist focus since the printing of AD&D at least, and only with 4e did it make a really conscious effort to migrate to a more gamist focus on the rules.

However, I think this is seriously off as a reflection of the game, as played and written. (I acknowledge that you said, "to me".) See the comments by Gygax on the subject in the 1st ed. AD&D DMG. I'd say that prior to 4E, D&D had somewhat of a pretense to simulation (or "gloss" if you find it less charged than "pretense") which was sufficient for some people who wanted that nod, but not really simulation as most people would understand it. Even 3E's simulation (the heaviest of the bunch) is as nothing compared to RQ or the like. D&D has always had a heavy (and primary) gamist focus, from the original wargame expansion to 4E. 4E replaced the simulation gloss with a narrative gloss.

 

[pemerton]

When I'm running a game, when I say that something is true in the game, it's true in the game. When someone else is running a game, the same is true when they say it.

If a player disagrees with me, I'm willing to hear him out, but I make the call, not him.

This is very strong stuff, and I'm curious as to whether you mean it literally.

For example, in your game, suppose (i) it is already established that a PC is not gagged, is not in an airless environment, has not had his/her throat ripped out, etc, and (ii) the player of that PC says "I say XYZ". Does the player really need the GM's permission before that statement becomes true in the fiction?

Or suppose that (i) it is already established that the PC has a sword in hand, that there is an orc a few feet away from him/her, etc, and (ii) the player says "I swing my sword at the orc". Does the player really need the GM's permission before that attempted attack becomes part of the fiction?

I think most games, and most game tables, anticipate that the players have a degree of authority over at least some aspects of the fiction very intimately related to their own PCs (as in the examples I've given above, and perhaps others as well - eg the patterns of the stitching on the boots my PC starts with, or the style in which my PC's hair is cut).

I don't see how that quote means what you claim it means. In fact, I'm not even sure what it means, to be honest with you. Attempting to open the door and negotiating with the other players whether something is true in game or not seem to be two completely different fields of endeavor to me

Vincent Baker's point, as I understand it, is that the core of an RPG is the participants agreeing on what happens in the shared fiction - and the rules contribute to the process of reaching that agreement. (Ie they facilitate the "negotiation" - as it is trite to note, they replace the "I shot you"/"No you didn't" of childhood cops and robbers.)

The contrast I had in mind in pointing to the two AD&D rules is this: the open doors rules are not only (i) a mechanic that determines who has the authority to say whether or not the door was opened by a particular PC (if I roll high enough, we are all obliged to accept that the door is opened by my guy, and if I don't then we are all obliged to accept that the door remains shut) but (ii) the mechanic also models the gameworld in producing that result - namely, it tells us why, within the fiction, the door is opened or remains shut: either my guy was strong enough, or s/he wasn't.

The saving throw rules in AD&D are different, though. They do the first job - of settling the question of whether the fiction contains one outcome (my guy got poisoned) or another (my guy didn't get poisoned). But they don't do so by modelling the gameworld. They don't tell us what happened, in the fiction, to bring it about that I did or didn't get poisoned. Gygax is quite clear, in the discussion in the combat section of the DMG, that it is up to the participants (he is ambiguous as to whether the player or the GM has final narration rights) to work out what happened in the fiction such that my guy did or did not get poisoned (eg maybe my guy was tough enough to survive the poison, or maybe the stinger didn't actually hit my guy at all, or perhaps it did but didn't inject the venom, etc). This is an early instance of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic.

In 3E I think saving throws are different - by making poison saves a Fortitude saves, I think the rules do dictate not only an outcome but an ingame process (namely, my guy was or was not tough enough to cope with the poison). This change in the role of the rules has other implications, too, like making it much harder to take the view that a hit that mandates a poison save did not involve physical damage (because, if my guy was never scratched, why would the question of toughing it out even come up?), and therefore making the non-physical model of hit points, which the game at least hints it is carrying over from AD&D, harder to implement.

This is one example which, for me, shows that the purpose of the rules has not been the same across all editions of D&D. In AD&D the saving throw rules do not serve the purpose of determining how, in the fiction, the character survives or fails to survive. In 3E they do aim at that purpose. (And I think other, comparable, differences can also be identified.)