Monte on Logic in RPGs

[Mark CMG]

Monte Cook (one of the designers of D&D 3E, and until recently of D&D Next) has written a short essay on "Logic in RPGs" over on his journal, The Chapel Perilous. It largely deals with the concept of rules-heavy and rules-light systems ("rulings not rules") and the effects such systems have on gameplay, while clearly stating his preference for the latter. It's not a new theory by any stretch, but it goes some way to codifying it clearly.

You can read the essay here.

 

[Lwaxy]

He nailed it right down.

 

[Fifth Element]

Thankfully he defined what he means by "logic" at one point, by which he basically means "whatever basis the DM and players want to use to drive their play experience."

Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.

 

[Mark CMG]

If this seems like a salvo in the so-called Edition Wars, let me assure you that it's not. It's a game design issue and it extends far beyond editions of any one particular game. I lament that there are now so many game design issues that one can't even discuss without them turning into Edition War name calling and finger pointing. In that regard, that detracts from, rather than adds to, the discussion.

Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.

Two posts in. Not a record but close.

 

[billd91]

Thankfully he defined what he means by "logic" at one point, by which he basically means "whatever basis the DM and players want to use to drive their play experience."

Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.

Note that he does say there are games out there like that that are excellent. I'd say that's true. So maybe he doesn't want to work on games like that anymore. Does that justify the cheap shot?

 

[Lanefan]

Reading this makes me even more curious as to why he left the 5e design team, as 5e is starting to look like it might need a bit of this kind of thinking.

Lanefan

 

[Quickleaf]

I believe what Monte Cook is advocating is commonly known as emergent gameplay.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's not bad. But there's quibbles.

First, there's the problem of the player getting "good instruction" for what is possible. I've seen this at work in the 5e playtest: having the ability to do anything can leave you paralyzed with options, unable to think of what you should do in any given situation. Not every player has a problem with this, but I've seen a lot of people just shrug and do some default action over and over again and get a little bored with it because they can't see what they can do.

The other side of this is a DM getting "good numbers" for what is possible. 4e's Page 42 could, slightly expanded, be a great basis for an entire RPG built entirely around what Monte is advocating. 5e doesn't have something like that yet, which means the DM gets her own special version of the analysis paralysis: I don't know HOW to adjudicate this so that it has some effect without having ALL the effect.

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.

And the absurd endpoint of the concept is to not have any rules at all because all we need is a player who says "I do X" and a DM who says "Y happens," and uses some half-arbitrary criteria to decide on success or failure.

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.

A game consisting of a PHB that says: "Do anything you want!" and a DMG that says "Figure out what happens!" doesn't give me enough hooks to hang anything on.

To a certain degree, this was a problem with my 4e experience. Lots of places where the rules told me to do it myself, and, as a result, I had no real idea what to do.

In other words, it's a great Rule Zero, but we're gonna need more than that (even if just a little bit).

 

[Fifth Element]

Two posts in. Not a record but close.

Nice try, but not every comment about the good stuff/bad stuff in a particular edition is an attempt at an edition war. Guess which edition of the game I'm playing right now?

And whether this was even a comment about bad stuff is a matter of opinion anyway, all I said was that it went against what he was talking about - if you disagree with his post you'd see that as a good thing, and I offered no comment on whether I agreed with his post in toto or not.

Also, note that I only said it was "interesting". I didn't say it made his comments invalid or that he was a hypocrite or something stupid like that.

So no, people can discuss various editions of the game without warring about it. But it's difficult, because there tends to be someone who will interpret it that way anyway.

Back to the thread!

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

Rather than just discuss the content sans edition, you felt the need to put it in terms of edition despite that being the exact opposite of the sentiment in the blog.

 

[Fifth Element]

Rather than just discuss the content sans edition, you felt the need to put it in terms of edition despite that being the exact opposite of the sentiment in the blog.

Sorry, I thought we could handle it like adults.

Back to the thread?

 

[Fifth Element]

To a certain degree, this was a problem with my 4e experience. Lots of places where the rules told me to do it myself, and, as a result, I had no real idea what to do.

In other words, it's a great Rule Zero, but we're gonna need more than that (even if just a little bit).

Careful, you mentioned an edition!

Monte's post did specifically mention that games shouldn't be completely freeform - if you're supposed to be good at hitting things with an axe, that should be in the rules to make sure it happens.

I think, as in most anything, it's a matter of finding the right balance. Giving the DM advice is certainly fine and good, but there's varying degrees of quality of advice, and there's no way to ensure a DM takes the advice.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Back to the thread?

Yes, please.

-Hyp.
Moderator

 

[wrightdjohn]

I love Monte as a designer. I am as excited as can be that he may design a game entirely himself. I know this sounds over the top but I've always felt he is the logical successor to Gary Gygax as the spirit of D&D roleplaying.

I'm curious what he will do and what genre he will do it in.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Monte's post did specifically mention that games shouldn't be completely freeform - if you're supposed to be good at hitting things with an axe, that should be in the rules to make sure it happens.

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, as in most anything, it's a matter of finding the right balance. Giving the DM advice is certainly fine and good, but there's varying degrees of quality of advice, and there's no way to ensure a DM takes the advice.

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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Funny you should say that, KM!

 

[Mercutio01]

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.

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.

 

[billd91]

Reading this makes me even more curious as to why he left the 5e design team, as 5e is starting to look like it might need a bit of this kind of thinking.

Lanefan

He said it was a dispute with the company, not the designers. Exactly what that means, we don't know. But if it truly has nothing to do with the design direction of the rules of the game, I assume the dispute is pretty serious for him to give up working on it.

 

[innerdude]

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.

 

[Janx]

Also interesting that the D&D edition that most offends the principles in his post is 3E (IMO), the edition which he had a hand in.

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.

It's also of note that Jeff Dee's rebuttal to Monte had some merit.

Monte criticized what the computer can do. Jeff pointed out his specific example was partly a limitation of the technology (it takes more resources to track status on every little object like Elder Scrolls does).

But he goes on further to point out, that the holy grail of making the perfect set of rules to define everything is exactly what happens in the real world and its set of rigig rules, yet human creativity still abounds.