http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

Controversy of the day...

My group has been discussing this free booklet, and especially this quote.

My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

The Quick Primer to Old School Gaming is something that's been written to allow people who've never ever played old school games to get an idea of how these games without skills and rules holes and all that might function in game play when compared to a game like 3rd edition D&D and its avatars. It's a starting point, not an end. It shouldn't be construed as some sort of "manifesto of OS gaming". It really isn't.

Quote from: Benoist;650055The Quick Primer to Old School Gaming is something that's been written to allow people who've never ever played old school games to get an idea of how these games without skills and rules holes and all that might function in game play when compared to a game like 3rd edition D&D and its avatars. It's a starting point, not an end. It shouldn't be construed as some sort of "manifesto of OS gaming". It really isn't.

I  get your point of intent, but do you have a different opinion on this specific point?

I can tell you what happens at my AD&D game table: I am very much the referee of the game, and the rules and their application are indeed my province. There is no copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide on the players' side of the screen. Somebody bringing such a book to the table would be asked to let it rest in the backpack. I decide what people roll and when. Players don't have attack matrixes in front of them, because figuring the monster's AC is *NOT* the point of the game. I don't reveal circumstantial modifiers on attack rolls and the like, I might substitute six-siders in the rules for twelve or hundred-sided dice while keeping the same relative odds, and back and forth.

What the players know about the game is what they discover through the act of play. A MU player knows how his spells work, a fighter knows the function of weapons and armor, and there is a copy of the PH on the table for them to look up stuff if need be, but that's no guarantee that things will turn out the way the rules say "because rules."

Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

Quote from: Benoist;650064What the players know about the game is what they discover through the act of play. A MU player knows how his spells work, a fighter knows the function of weapons and armor, and there is a copy of the PH on the table for them to look up stuff if need be, but that's no guarantee that things will turn out the way the rules say "because rules."

Either you trust me to do a fair, consistent job as a DM, and know what it is I am doing without switching the tables around or engaging in illusionism or whatever else, or you don't. If you don't, there's really no point in playing together, and I'm cool with that.

You also have a PH on the table, and as you say, you are not "switching the tables around", and the players know how their functions work. Should the players have a reasonable assumption that if they read the PH about these things that they can rely on it, unless you tell them you are house-ruling it?

If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

Quote from: Lynn;650068If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Pretty much my approach.

Quote from: Lynn;650068You also have a PH on the table, and as you say, you are not "switching the tables around", and the players know how their functions work. Should the players have a reasonable assumption that if they read the PH about these things that they can rely on it, unless you tell them you are house-ruling it?

Reasonable assumption? Yes.

If I have a specific house rule the players will know about it. For instance, I allow weapon specializations for fighting types but not at level 1. I'm actually very open about the way I like to run the game and questions are always welcome. There will be a pre-game session where we discuss about such things and basically make sure we all play the same game. Communication is one of the keys of trust.

That said, no, just because the PH says it works one way doesn't mean it'll work that way in every single instance in the game. Take an attack roll for instance. You know the basic procedure of rolling a d20, but you don't know what modifiers might affect the roll after the fact. You know that a natural 20 might accomplish something incredible, but that's not a guarantee that it will always be a hit and always be awesome. You know your sword does 1d8 damage, but against this or that opponent it could be half damage or whatnot.

You can always ask a question in the game, and I generally will answer from the point of view of what your character would know. For instance: "looking at the chasm in front of us, is it possible for me to jump over it? How much of a chance would I have to make it?" I could answer something like "You trust your good legs, but the chasm is relatively wide. You think you could possibly make it, with enough distance to run before the jump. With that in mind, you could make it, perhaps, one time out of three. Maybe less."

All these things you look at in the PH basically give you an idea of how the world works from a rules standpoint, like a still picture of the world's physics in a book, something abstract, more of a broad generality than anything else. It's a reasonable assumption to think it will usually work this or that way, but it's not always how it'll turn out in practice.

Quote from: Lynn;650068If you make a house-rule that modifies something in the PH (something that wouldn't otherwise be a hidden DM roll), wouldn't you also make an effort to communicate that to the players, and support that as a "patch" to the rules?

Yes. For instance, if I don't use the weapons vs. AC table, I'll say just that to the players up front. Or the way I interpret the minimum and maximum spells per level on the Intelligence table. Those kinds of things.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Yes.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069At my table the players tell me what they're doing in the game and I tell them what to roll/what they need to do etc...

Any explicit reference to the rules on the players part is the exception rather than the rule.

Players say, "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground"

NOT

"I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc"

Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Right, I didn't say that. This isn't about players dictating rules at all, or changing DM's right to fiat. It is a much simpler question than that. When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

For the most part, I also follow the same format that you outline above, but the 3.x complexity causes some problems because its jam packed with all sorts of variants and alternatives.

Ive been playing in and running a LotFP game, and there are a limited number of types of maneuvers in that system. That narrowness of focus makes interpreting rather easy. You only have one type of "Charge" for example - its more than just running up and striking. If a player want's to charge, then they need to convey that in some way, rather than just saying something about running up and striking - because not all attacks are charges.

Quote from: Lynn;650052http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

Controversy of the day...

My group has been discussing this free booklet, and especially this quote.

My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

You are right and wrong.

Yes, you don't want to create a 'Mother may I' situation at your table.
No, because Finch explicitly states that the referee is to use their authority to apply common sense solutions.

Page 2

QuoteThe referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there's some random element involved, and then the game moves on

 I feel that older D&D is best run as realistic emulation but on a more abstract level than say GURPS. That how I have been refereeing my side by side Swords & Wizardry campaign and GURPS campaign. The characters do the same things for the same reasons in both campaigns. GURPS has the detailed options and S&W doesn't.

And one reason for this is that most of my GURPS players are novices and they wind up doing the same thing as in my S&W. Namely describe their action and ask me what the rules are.

It depends on a couple of things. First of all is the GM's style - some like to be the sole and whole interface for the world and rules, even to the extent of rolling the dice for the players. That's an extreme example but you're talking about a technique to help achieve deep immersion. Others like the players to get more involved which I maintain doesn't hazard immersion as long as the players are familiar enough with the rules.

Secondly of course the players are going to be familiar with the rules one way or another. They have character sheets and the letters and numbers on them are going to need meaning, unless the GM takes them away too, and maybe some do. So a broad statement like "Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players" is meaningless really.

I differentiate setting and rules, and put things like monsters into the setting box. The players shouldn't be familiar with all of the monsters, or monsters should be adjusted to make them unfamiliar if that's what's needed. Spells are also in the setting box, but players should be at least passingly familiar with the ones they might be using.

Whether or not players bring the rules into actual play is a seperate issue - saying something like "I use the Bullrush maneuver on the Orc" instead of "I run up and try to grab the Orc and bear him to the ground" could be seen as clarifying for the GM exactly what the character wants to do. There are other examples which are far less clear cut.

And although the mantra is 'if you don't trust your GM don't play with them', the bottom line is some people are just dicks. And some people become dicks when given lots of power. Meek and mild mannered friend by day, Stanford prison experiment guard by night.

Not trying to start a ragefight here at all, but I wonder is the popularity of the OSR with this kind of GMing style due to the relative simplicity and familiarity of these systems to those GMs. I mean it basically places all of the crunch burden on the GM, and that can start grating really quickly if you aren't using a simple system that you know back to front. It gets really hard.

Something to think about, maybe I'll set up a poll to get an idea of the cross fertilisation between the 'GM as world and rules' group and the OSR fanclub.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Quote from: Lynn;650078Right, I didn't say that. This isn't about players dictating rules at all, or changing DM's right to fiat. It is a much simpler question than that. When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

In most cases yes if it is something they would know as their characters or need to know to make a character.

Quote from: Lynn;650052The rules exist to provide a framework for the GM and players, and if the GM wants to change something, he's free to patch the system. But if he patched the system, he'd tell you about it.

Otherwise you fall into a mother-may-I system that is more modern that clone.

YMMV in experience, depending on where you played in the '70s.

What the pioneers in fact wrote on the subject at the time, however, makes your "more modern" quip look misinformed. Your way is not the way that Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, Hargrave, Perrin, etc., advocated.

What's more 'modern' -- albeit present all those decades ago -- is your (and others' on all sides') insistence on a One True Way, on criticising as 'wrong' the way other people play.

Quote from: Benoist;650072That said, no, just because the PH says it works one way doesn't mean it'll work that way in every single instance in the game. Take an attack roll for instance. You know the basic procedure of rolling a d20, but you don't know what modifiers might affect the roll after the fact. You know that a natural 20 might accomplish something incredible, but that's not a guarantee that it will always be a hit and always be awesome. You know your sword does 1d8 damage, but against this or that opponent it could be half damage or whatnot.

Yes, indeed. There's the physics of the world that are unknowable to players and characters.

Quote from: Benoist;650072You can always ask a question in the game, and I generally will answer from the point of view of what your character would know. For instance: "looking at the chasm in front of us, is it possible for me to jump over it? How much of a chance would I have to make it?" I could answer something like "You trust your good legs, but the chasm is relatively wide. You think you could possibly make it, with enough distance to run before the jump. With that in mind, you could make it, perhaps, one time out of three. Maybe less."

All these things you look at in the PH basically give you an idea of how the world works from a rules standpoint, like a still picture of the world's physics in a book, something abstract, more of a broad generality than anything else. It's a reasonable assumption to think it will usually work this or that way, but it's not always how it'll turn out in practice.

Yes, exactly. There character expectations of randomness, and the actual unknowable-to-players randomness that gets applied to any roll.

Quote from: Benoist;650072Yes. For instance, if I don't use the weapons vs. AC table, I'll say just that to the players up front. Or the way I interpret the minimum and maximum spells per level on the Intelligence table. Those kinds of things.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me, too, and what I do. The original quote seemed a little too one sided to me - a little too "Mother May I".