Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [icons-rpg] Monte Cook on Logic in RPGs

Expand Messages
  • Cameron Mount
    There s been a lot of discussion about that even at ENWorld. Some people are a little rude about Monte Cook s experience, but they do have a little bit of a
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      There's been a lot of discussion about that even at ENWorld. Some people are a little rude about Monte Cook's experience, but they do have a little bit of a point since game design is not just D&D. I think, after looking through a lot of games, what is interesting to me is that rules-tight and rules-loose is a more interesting breakdown than rules-heavy and rules-light.

      I think I prefer something like rules-tight and rules-light in combination, which is sort of how I see ICONS (and a lot of other indie-style games). By that I mean that it gives explicit advice on how to handle things, as opposed to leaving it open for GM interpretation. With ICONS, the answer for a lot of questions is Determination, which is a very light rule, but a tight one.

      I'm not sure I'm being clear...the concern I have with a rules-loose kind of game (something like original D&D) is that there isn't a lot of guidance on how to respond to different situations. Maybe that's good in some ways. I don't know.

      If you look at experimental indie games like Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World, you see that it's light on rules, but has tight instructions for responding to things as a GM. FATE is similar, in that there's some explicit guidance for allowing characters and players to do things that doesn't follow super-strict rules, but does have an overarching mechanic for it.

      So, like I said, I'd classify ICONS as rules-light (there aren't that many rules) but rules-tight (a basic rule that covers just about any contingency).

      On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM, jaerdaph <jjbardales@...> wrote:
       

      This recent blog post by Monte Cook on game design got me thinking a lot about how ICONS follows this design philosophy of GM logic as opposed to having a tightly written rules set that covers every single possible outcome:

      http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html

      Anyhow, it's a nice look at the benefits and possible pitfalls of having a looser rules set (as opposed to 4e D&D or even Pathfinder/3.5e D&D where everything is spelled out and every contingency is covered) and how this can lead to greater GM and player freedom.

      Anyhow, it's definitely worth a read.

      jaerdaph


    • Fabrício César Franco
      I read it and it made perfect sense. When I started reading, I felt a little guilty because I always want the rules (powers and specialties, mostly) all
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I read it and it made perfect sense. When I started reading, I felt a little guilty because I always want the rules (powers and specialties, mostly) all spelled out, to avoid much debate while playing. But it's not that focus what the article is about, it's broader and my inquiries (and additions to the rules, so far) seem completely acceptable.

        Fabrício

        2012/6/7 jaerdaph <jjbardales@...>
         

        This recent blog post by Monte Cook on game design got me thinking a lot about how ICONS follows this design philosophy of GM logic as opposed to having a tightly written rules set that covers every single possible outcome:

        http://montecook.livejournal.com/254395.html

        Anyhow, it's a nice look at the benefits and possible pitfalls of having a looser rules set (as opposed to 4e D&D or even Pathfinder/3.5e D&D where everything is spelled out and every contingency is covered) and how this can lead to greater GM and player freedom.

        Anyhow, it's definitely worth a read.

        jaerdaph


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.