http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html (http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html)
Found this article interesting. Not only does it touch on a lot of issues relating to the 5E playtest, but connects to lotsof things (mother may I for example). We have been discussing.
I think good old Monte must have a sneaky sockpuppet account here or something...;)
Good article.
I swear there must be some asshole with a shotgun that stands over certain posters and keeps them, with the threat of "Boom, Headshot!" to The Face! if they actually post an exerpt or teaser rather than just a fucking link.
Hell, I count myself lucky to see a single line of commentary under the link telling me why the link itself is there, so for that, thank you Bedrock. I know that shotgun wielding maniac must be fearsome indeed to keep you from doing more.
Quote from: One Horse Town;546514I think good old Monte must have a sneaky sockpuppet account here or something...;)
Good article.
He definitey hits on stuff we have been discussing (maybe other forums are having the same conversation though).
Yeah, good article and pretty topical right now.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546518He definitey hits on stuff we have been discussing (maybe other forums are having the same conversation though).
I am personally having it in two other forums. It's a big topic right now because one of the D&D articles was on 'rulings not rules'.
Quote from: One Horse Town;546514I think good old Monte must have a sneaky sockpuppet account here or something...
Assuredly not.
What a longwinded way to say:
Hey guys, guess what I just thought of? Rpgs kind of work better when the GM doesn't have his head up his ass.
Well. That's the Monte I know.
Well done. Very well done indeed. And the timing is impeccable.
I think he's spot on with this part:
By what about the players in all this? If we put more authority into the hands of the GM, aren't we taking it away from the players? I don't believe so. In fact, I think the opposite is true. (And I am all for giving more authority to players over their own actions.) By giving GMs the ability to interpret the actions in the game world using logic and reason, it gives players the authority to come up with creative responses to game situations rather than simply relying on what the game's designer thought they should do. In a rules-tight game, a player's options are spelled out for him. In a GM-logic game, the player can come up with any action she wishes, knowing that the GM can arbitrate it.
Nobody's posted it on RPGnet apparently. Hm. :D
Quote from: Benoist;546567Nobody's posted it on RPGnet apparently. Hm. :D
Done (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?630155-Monte-Cook-on-quot-Logic-in-RPGs-quot&p=15506595#post15506595).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546512http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html (http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html)
Found this article interesting. Not only does it touch on a lot of issues relating to the 5E playtest, but connects to lotsof things (mother may I for example). We have been discussing.
There is a lot in that blog post that I agree with.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;546571Done (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?630155-Monte-Cook-on-quot-Logic-in-RPGs-quot&p=15506595#post15506595).
I wonder how long it will take before the shit hits the fan on that thread.
It's great to see Monte even willing to go there in the first place, to be honest. I like what I read a lot.
Quote from: Benoist;546579I wonder how long it will take before the shit hits the fan on that thread.
It's great to see Monte even willing to go there in the first place, to be honest. I like what I read a lot.
It seems to be a divisive subject so my guess is it won't take long. It already stirred a minor storm on enworld (I suspect it will pick up steam in a page or two). We've already kind of had this debate here (and it was exhausting :)), so I suspect there is not much wind for it here.
I'm not going to debate the matter further and intend only to make a couple of comments to leave things a clear state.
I don't disagree with the article as much as recent threads would indicate and feel that most places in a table-top RPG require a great deal of judgement from the GM. It can be no other way.
The area where I do disagree is with well-defined combat systems supporting maps and mins and only there. Here the GM should be little more than aother player, if one with a different and completely neutral role.
No reason to do combat differently than everything else. The GM should be neutral in all areas of adjudication, not just combat.
The article assumes a binary of either rules or rulings - when really all RPGs have both. The question is at what point on the spectrum of abstraction do the rules stop covering things. I'd say if something is going to come up repeatedly in play and can be reasonably expected, then I think there should be a rule for it. It's a matter of taste, though, about how often or how expected something should be to be covered.
One example is backstab. Assuming that thieves are given a damage bonus for backstab by the rules, I think it's good to have some clear rules for when they can get at someone's back, rather than just leaving it for every GM to make up for themselves.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;546595No reason to do combat differently than everything else. The GM should be neutral in all areas of adjudication, not just combat.
And the GM can be.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546512http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html (http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html)
Found this article interesting. Not only does it touch on a lot of issues relating to the 5E playtest, but connects to lotsof things (mother may I for example). We have been discussing.
Very nice article I agree with quite alot of it.
QuoteThe article assumes a binary of either rules or rulings - when really all RPGs have both. The question is at what point on the spectrum of abstraction do the rules stop covering things. I'd say if something is going to come up repeatedly in play and can be reasonably expected, then I think there should be a rule for it. It's a matter of taste, though, about how often or how expected something should be to be covered.
One example is backstab. Assuming that thieves are given a damage bonus for backstab by the rules, I think it's good to have some clear rules for when they can get at someone's back, rather than just leaving it for every GM to make up for themselves.
Well of course. There has to be rules but you shouldn't be a slave to them.
Quote from: Benoist;546579I wonder how long it will take before the shit hits the fan on that thread.
So far it seems to have attracted little attention.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;546613So far it seems to have attracted little attention.
Interesting, isn't it?
I agree with the article.
What makes it a head scratcher for me is his role in developing 3e.
3e had an awful lot of the things he's criticizing here. In some ways, more than even 4e (though that may be a function of the shear quantity of books published for 3e creating more and more rules for every situation, than anything else).
Quote from: Mistwell;546623What makes it a head scratcher for me is his role in developing 3e.
3e had an awful lot of the things he's criticizing here. In some ways, more than even 4e (though that may be a function of the shear quantity of books published for 3e creating more and more rules for every situation, than anything else).
3.0. had less of that stuff than 3.5 did, though. Part of the edits between the two versions were actually taking away the references to the DM interpreting stuff and how this or that element would be a guideline, not a rule, etc.
I think people tend to forget how much 3.0. was different in tone, in that regard at least.
Quote from: Benoist;5466283.0. had less of that stuff than 3.5 did, though. Part of the edits between the two versions were actually taking away the references to the DM interpreting stuff and how this or that element would be a guideline, not a rule, etc.
I think people tend to forget how much 3.0. was different in tone, in that regard at least.
That's my recollection as well.
Quote from: Mistwell;546623What makes it a head scratcher for me is his role in developing 3e.
3e had an awful lot of the things he's criticizing here. In some ways, more than even 4e (though that may be a function of the shear quantity of books published for 3e creating more and more rules for every situation, than anything else).
I suspect this article is actually being heavily informed by his experience with 3E.
By which I mean that the designers of 3.0 wrote a book full of useful guidelines that GMs could use to inform their rulings... and then large chunks of the fanbase went insane and started treating the guidelines as if they were hard-and-fast rules.
His earlier "Ivory Tower" essay reflected on that experience and concluded that the solution would be a lot more guidelines and explicit advice. I suspect after that essay was met with mind-raving insanity and illiteracy (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design) that Cook decided no amount of hand-holding would help people who want to treat every single word in an RPG manual as holy writ and has now headed in the opposite direction: Strip out all the reference points and just leave the basic effects and most general guidelines.
Quote from: Benoist;546628I think people tend to forget how much 3.0. was different in tone, in that regard at least.
3.0: "Here is a picture of what 1/2 3/4 and 9/10 cover looks like"
3.5: "If you assume a grid you can easily determine the cover a creature has from a particularly vantage point, simply draw imaginary lines form all corner of the attackers space to all corners of the defending creatures space, should any one line pass through and obstruction then that creature has cover provided that said line did not pass -along- and obstruction. In the case of 2 or more lines passing though a..."
Quote from: Kord's Boon;5466563.0: "Here is a picture of what 1/2 3/4 and 9/10 cover looks like"
3.5: "If you assume a grid you can easily determine the cover a creature has from a particularly vantage point, simply draw imaginary lines form all corner of the attackers space to all corners of the defending creatures space, should any one line pass through and obstruction then that creature has cover provided that said line did not pass -along- and obstruction. In the case of 2 or more lines passing though a..."
Using definitions like 1/2, 3/4, and 9/10ths cover does tend to require either some illustration or some method of determination though.
I prefer a simpler delineation like "partial" and "full". Easy enough to tell the difference without much further information.
QuoteHis earlier "Ivory Tower" essay reflected on that experience and concluded that the solution would be a lot more guidelines and explicit advice. I suspect after that essay was met with mind-raving insanity and illiteracy that Cook decided no amount of hand-holding would help people who want to treat every single word in an RPG manual as holy writ and has now headed in the opposite direction: Strip out all the reference points and just leave the basic effects and most general guidelines.
Which now has DM's that either like or only ran 4e whining that's it just too much work to make those on the fly calls for the whole game. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?630153-DND-5E-My-First-Playtest-Impressions-(as-DM) (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?630153-DND-5E-My-First-Playtest-Impressions-(as-DM)).
Quote from: Marleycat;546662Which now has DM's that either like or only ran 4e whining that's it just too much work to make those on the fly calls for the whole game. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?630153-DND-5E-My-First-Playtest-Impressions-(as-DM) (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?630153-DND-5E-My-First-Playtest-Impressions-(as-DM)).
"Thinking for myself is hard."
Sorry for the uselessness of my post, but that's really how this guy's feedback comes off to me.
Quote from: Benoist;546669"Thinking for myself is hard."
Sorry for the uselessness of my post, but that's really how this guy's feedback comes off to me.
To be honest a few posters later on in the thread did seem to get him to admit that he may have made an error. So he might be redeemed with a little coaching and good solid guidelines and advice in the DMG. I more or less was trying to say there's no way to satisfy everyone. One direction lies 4e the other 0e it's going to hard if not impossible to strike a happy medium that doesn't end up making anybody happy.
Quote from: beejazz;546661Using definitions like 1/2, 3/4, and 9/10ths cover does tend to require either some illustration or some method of determination though.
I prefer a simpler delineation like "partial" and "full". Easy enough to tell the difference without much further information.
True, but it's been said a picture is worth a thousand words and in this case I would tend to agree.
Having full and partial is great but if the rules for determining who has what type is long and convoluted you run the risk of washing out the simplicity of having two cover states.
In the 3.0 case, while the modifiers and categories are more complicated the adjudication guideline can be summed up in one informative picture, which is nice. Also having a category for 'almost' total cover (9/10) was handy as you would commonly come up against it, like arrow slits and cracked doors
Quote from: Benoist;5466283.0. had less of that stuff than 3.5 did, though. Part of the edits between the two versions were actually taking away the references to the DM interpreting stuff and how this or that element would be a guideline, not a rule, etc.
I think people tend to forget how much 3.0. was different in tone, in that regard at least.
True. I actually preferred 3e to 3.5e in many respects, and I think it really sucked when they put out the new half edition, and the impact it had on the 3rd party market.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546512http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html (http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html)
Found this article interesting. Not only does it touch on a lot of issues relating to the 5E playtest, but connects to lotsof things (mother may I for example). We have been discussing.
Monte Cook did a good explanation of the two main kinds of GMs. If anyone has problems with his article, I'm guessing it's an English language barrier thing. Because there is nothing to hate about it.
Quote from: Kord's Boon;546684True, but it's been said a picture is worth a thousand words and in this case I would tend to agree.
Having full and partial is great but if the rules for determining who has what type is long and convoluted you run the risk of washing out the simplicity of having two cover states.
In the 3.0 case, while the modifiers and categories are more complicated the adjudication guideline can be summed up in one informative picture, which is nice. Also having a category for 'almost' total cover (9/10) was handy as you would commonly come up against it, like arrow slits and cracked doors
TBH it wouldn't matter to me much if I wasn't tinkering in my spare time, but I'd almost prefer to call out the "arrow slit" case as total cover against long range. There's a really minimal chance of hitting a guy through a far off arrow slit, but it's no big deal to the guy right there. That's kind of the point of arrow slits.
So total cover, partial cover, and some rules about how some things apply as one or the other only past a certain range.
Don't get me wrong; I prefer the picture over the verbose 3.5 thing, but I also favor rules that are made to be easy enough to express in conversation.
It also really depends on the game. Rules for cover can and should be different in a game with hit locations, for example. That kind of "x therefore y" is probably a lot more common than game designers want to admit.
Quote from: Benoist;546669"Thinking for myself is hard."
Sorry for the uselessness of my post, but that's really how this guy's feedback comes off to me.
My favorite RPG, Marvel SAGA, completely falls apart if you're not willing to think on the fly.
Wowee. Clear rules are great, but c'mon.
Quote from: Benoist;546669"Thinking for myself is hard."
Sorry for the uselessness of my post, but that's really how this guy's feedback comes off to me.
One of my take-aways from helping students in a college computer lab for nearly a decade was that different people think differently and what one person finds easy and enjoyable can be difficult or unpleasant to someone else. I don't like making arbitrary judgements and, as a result, I roll a lot of dice when I GM to decide things for me and, frankly, I find GMing a chore. It's something I often tolerate more than enjoy. I don't really mind rough GM-assessed modifiers in combat, for example, but I can imagine someone finding it a chore without it being a sign of a mental disability or fatal character flaw that makes them worthy of being mocked.
As I've already mentioned one can run a role-playing game simply by having the players describe their characters to the GM and rolling freeform dice. When I played a few games that way, the rule was "high rolls are good and low rolls are bad", but one could just as easily call that each turn, too. That most people don't role-play that way even when they could suggests that there is something unsatisfactory to simply rely on GM-logic to run a game. And if you think that's a reductio ad absurdum (even though I've played that way), as I've recently mentioned, not looking rules up was a design goal of Fudge (http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fud-des.html) and it's possible (and was even somewhat encouraged) to play Fudge in a very freeform way, yet few people actually seem to play it that freeform.
Yet another problem with that is when GM-logic does not match player logic. Sure, the player might decide to swing from the chandelier and land in front of their opponent, but if the GM's logic determines that such an action gives the player's opponent the opportunity to set their weapon and fatally skewer the PC as they fly toward them unable to stop, the player might not be all that pleased with the outcome(*). And if that sort of thing wasn't ever a problem (in case you again wander down the road of talking about what the majority of the hobby does or wants based on your own anecdotal experience), we wouldn't have advice like "Say 'Yes' or roll dice" or, on the flip side, stories of pushover Monty Haul GMs who never say no.
Please note that I am not advocating a system where the players and GM can only do what's explicitly spelled out in the rules. My point is that there are some very real liabilities to using GM logic, just as there are liabilities to having comprehensive or detailed rules, and a reason why the really rules-light games that rely primarily on GM logic such as freeform Fudge, Risus, Over the Edge, and so on don't dominate the hobby even though they've been out there for a while. In fact, there is no shortage of really nice very rules-light dungeon crawl systems out there like Dungeonslayers (http://www.dungeonslayers.com/) or Warrior, Rogue & Mage (http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/) for people who want to get their GM logic freak on.
(*) The main way to get players to have their characters do things like swing from chandeliers is to not punish them for it.
The article is rather laughable considering the author's actual history. Monte is king asshole of Ruleslandia or are we all supposed to forget 3e existed?
Ah, the beauty of new edition wars. Red Team is now Blue Team! And of course, Monte has always been at war with Oceania.
Is there a vetting process for deciding who gets to write the rules for new editions of D&D?
Quote from: Spinachcat;546769Monte is king asshole of Ruleslandia or are we all supposed to forget 3e existed?
I don't recall 3e being near as bad as 3.5e and the culture that grew up around it, especially CharOp. Silly internet,
It is interesting how much of the general thought process most here seem to work with he has glommed onto.
'Rulings not Rules' is easy, but the mention of teaching GMs, the power of creating your own game and table, the idea that the Old games were designed this way...there is a lot that is common to this place.
I do not think he is right about the combat rules, BTW. Any area of the rules where you write more rules becomes more the focus of the game. Write a lot of rules for mercantile interaction and improving these abilities...players will spend time in mercantile pursuit.
Quote from: Spinachcat;546769The article is rather laughable considering the author's actual history. Monte is king asshole of Ruleslandia or are we all supposed to forget 3e existed?
Ah, the beauty of new edition wars. Red Team is now Blue Team! And of course, Monte has always been at war with Oceania.
And for a while now I thought you were Kevin/Piratecat/Vikingcat. I am pretty sure, now, that you're not.
Quote from: Mistwell;546901And for a while now I thought you were Kevin/Piratecat/Vikingcat. I am pretty sure, now, that you're not.
Hm. No. Definitely not.
Quote from: Mistwell;546901And for a while now I thought you were Kevin/Piratecat/Vikingcat. I am pretty sure, now, that you're not.
Don't feel bad I thought to same while lurking and then went to ENworld to compare them. And nope.:)
The first rules question in the Hulks and Horrors playtest came in the other day.
Someone wanted to know if the Omegans, who communicate visually by color, would thus be effectively "deaf" to Omegan speech if a photon flash blinded them.
I answered, of course, yes. Makes sense to me. And that to me is how things are supposed to work. You follow the logic of the setting and questions like that, if the information is there, are easy.
Are there professional GMs that players can hire for their gaming nights? There should be.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;546962Are there professional GMs that players can hire for their gaming nights? There should be.
Game mastitutes?
I guess.
The person got their RPG degree and is certified to GM RPG X and Y. They come to the house with the most professional campaign ever. Players get out their credit cards.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;546962Are there professional GMs that players can hire for their gaming nights? There should be.
I have seen ads online for this sort of thing. Rpg companies sometimes hire gms to run games at stores or conventions. But I think most players don't like the idea of paying to play. I know I wouldn't want to pay a GM to run a game for me.
If anyone is willing to pay to play i have a bridge to sell them.
Quote from: One Horse Town;546982If anyone is willing to pay to play i have a bridge to sell them.
Isn't GenCon's business model based on this concept?
Quote from: Mistwell;546688True. I actually preferred 3e to 3.5e in many respects, and I think it really sucked when they put out the new half edition, and the impact it had on the 3rd party market.
Hmmm, you actually may have some good judgement and taste after all...
Quit fucking with my head!!
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;546962Are there professional GMs that players can hire for their gaming nights? There should be.
There should be people you can pay to wipe your arse for you as well.
There are such people.
Bruce Campbell pussed out on me when I tried it.
Quote from: daniel_ream;547094Bruce Campbell pussed out on me when I tried it.
Umm. Tried what? Running a game for hire or wiping his arse? :rotfl:
Back In The Day, one of the Deadlands books had an intro by Mr. Campbell, in which he claimed that if you did not think that Deadlands was the most awesome game ever, you could front his appearance fee, he would come to your town and run a game for you, and if at the end you still hadn't had a good time he would refund the fee.
Challenge Accepted.
In 2003, flush with cash from our respective dot-com buyouts, a bunch of friends and I called his agent, negotiated a $5,000 appearance fee, and when he showed up later that year in Toronto to do a book signing we presented him with the certified cheque and a copy of the Deadlands book.
After the book signing when everyone else had left, he explained that it was always just meant as a joke, he never thought anyone would take it seriously, he was booked solid for the next three years anyway, very sorry you went to all the trouble, etc. etc.
In retrospect $5,000 seems very low even given that he hadn't had his big break just yet, so it's entirely possible his agent was shining us on knowing full well Bruce would never agree.
Still.
Quote from: daniel_ream;547134Back In The Day, one of the Deadlands books had an intro by Mr. Campbell, in which he claimed that if you did not think that Deadlands was the most awesome game ever, you could front his appearance fee, he would come to your town and run a game for you, and if at the end you still hadn't had a good time he would refund the fee.
Challenge Accepted.
In 2003, flush with cash from our respective dot-com buyouts, a bunch of friends and I called his agent, negotiated a $5,000 appearance fee, and when he showed up later that year in Toronto to do a book signing we presented him with the certified cheque and a copy of the Deadlands book.
After the book signing when everyone else had left, he explained that it was always just meant as a joke, he never thought anyone would take it seriously, he was booked solid for the next three years anyway, very sorry you went to all the trouble, etc. etc.
In retrospect $5,000 seems very low even given that he hadn't had his big break just yet, so it's entirely possible his agent was shining us on knowing full well Bruce would never agree.
Still.
Before his big break?
Deadlands was published in 1996. By that time Bruce had done Army of Darkness and Brisco County Jr.
He totally should have done it. Would have been awesome.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;547138Before his big break? [...] Bruce had done Army of Darkness and Brisco County Jr.
Both of which are at best cult favourites among a very small number of fans, relatively speaking. By "big break", I'm referring to his appearances in Spider-Man and Burn Notice, which made him orders of magnitude more money and exposure than everything he'd done before combined.
QuoteHe totally should have done it. Would have been awesome.
I'm not disagreeing with you there. We had 5 large on it, don't forget.
I will accept money to GM. I'd even run 4E for enough cash... and of course, signed waivers absolving me of any responsibility for it to be fun (the system should handle that, right?... Right?!)
As for Mr Campbell, I'm rather disappointed. As it happens I recently stumbled across a story of Steve McQueen, who famously didn't give interviews, who took time off from shooting to give a fan an interview for a high school publication. That's class.
Mr Campbell should have manned up, ran a game (even if he sucked at it) and refused the money on general principle... or taken it, either way...seeing how this was an extremely uncommon event, and it would have earned him more fan cred... not that he needed(s?) it.
Make a promise to fans, its good form to deliver. Just for that I won't work too hard to watch the new seasons of Burn Notice. Slacktivism for the win!
This topic from Monte is all really funny, given that he's probably the single most responsible person for starting the current trend toward RPGs having to have a rule for everything, and (along with his 3e WoTC cohorts) creating an environment that actively encourages players to fiddle with and outright-manipulate the rules to buff up their characters or gain advantages.
Its not wonder he hates character creation. Its mostly his fault that character creation has been turned into such a struggle between manipulative players with a sense of entitlement and GMs who don't want their game wrecked from the start.
RPGPundit
Hollywood celebs don't socialize with the general public. You took too long to get your money.
Quote from: RPGPundit;547287Its no wonder he hates character creation. Its mostly his fault that character creation has been turned into such a struggle between manipulative players with a sense of entitlement and GMs who don't want their game wrecked from the start.
RPGPundit
Quoted for truth.