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

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 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).

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).

"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.