While doing some navel gazing recently I realized that I really like games in which the game rules decide a lot of important stuff without much GM input and that's why I like OSR games so much.

What I mean by this is that generally in OSR games the rules are often very narrow and give exact rules for a specific situation that isn't really tied into any overarching system. For example in the Caverns of Thracia module that I'm currently running there is a rule for likelihood of slipping in bat shit and the effects thereof despite the rules the module is designed for not having any balance skill or general rules written up for the effects of being covered in shit.

So when the players interact with these rules as a GM you don't really have to make any decisions, you just apply the rule. Caverns of Thracia tells me exactly what to do when the players are running about in bat shit.

Now obviously in OSR games there are vast swaths of gameplay with no rules at all, which means you've got to make shit up on the fly a lot of the time, which often isn't ideal. It's just that there are only so many rules you can keep in your head and more modern games have tried to plug up the many holes in OSR rules and the more they do this the more rulings the GM has to make.

The thing is, when you create a set of rules that covers everything you generally get gameplay along the lines of:

Player: so I try to leap on the food cart and surf through the crowds!
GM: that'd be Balance. You're pretty good at that skill.
Player: yup, +10. What's the DC?
GM: Um, 15?
Player: *rolls* Great! I pass! Now how fast does this food cart go?
G: Hmmmmmm...

Sure the player is using rules for the Balance skill, but the GM has to make just as many rules handling decisions as if they were using an OSR ruleset and just making up shit whole cloth. Quite often universal systems get stretched to the point that their vague haze doesn't look too much different from just having a hole in the rules while at the same time trying to make all of the rules so broad robs you of the wonderful simplicity of exact rules for bat shit that don't try to be anything but rules for bat shit.

The same goes for attempts to nail things down more. With games like 3.5ed there's rules there if you want to know how much harder it is to tumble across even vs. uneven flagstones but the problem with that is you don't keep the number of rules manageable it becomes incredibly opaque for the players since they don't know exactly how you're going to apply the rules, even remember if that rule exists or are going to bother look it up in the first place rather than winging it. For example every single 3.5ed GM I've had has applied Diplomacy rules differently, often radically differently.

The same goes for rulesets that try to abstract away all of the specific stuff that makes it hard to make rules that fit everywhere. The problem with this is not only is interacting with the specifics a whole lot of fun but with a lot of abstract rules you get the mechanics starting to become unmoored from the ingame reality so GM decisions about what difficulty level to hit the players with can often be really arbitrary, which again really leads to actual gameplay depending on GM rulings to a massive degree.

The other thing that OSR rules do to provide me with rules not rulings is to provide me with useful rules for the stuff that most often spells the difference between a loot haul and a TPK, stuff like "are we going to run into monsters on the way home?", "is the treasure a few light gems or a massive bulky pile of coins?", "does the ogre attack on sight?" Deciding questions like these often have a MASSIVE effect on what happens in an adventure so that if I have them to lean on what happens to the players is more determined by their skill and luck than on how lenient or bloodthirsty I feel like being while with a lot of modern rulesets the answer is "the GM will now make some shit up."

It's not that I can't make good ruling on the fly or that I like the sort of sessions where nothing that requires rulings come up. I love when players make up plans that are so off the wall that no rules could account for them. It's just that as a GM I love it when the players win some crazy triumph in a way that was purely due to their cleverness, without it depending on how lenient I wanted to interpret things and as I player I love knowing that the the fact that I didn't run into any critters while limping home with one hit point is because I was just that lucky, not because the GM decided that I wouldn't run into any. Same goes on the other side, feels a lot better to know that your back luck in running into a bunch of ogres at level 1 is actual bad luck, not the GM fucking with you by choosing to hit you with an incredibly difficult encounter while cackling evilly.

One example of doing a good job of capturing this are ACKS proficiencies. Sure they don't cover a lot of things, but they're very exact about what they do cover so you don't need much in the way of GM rulings to apply them. For similar reasons my favorite spell descriptions are the 1ed ones as I think they do the best job of providing information about what happens if the players try to use them in creative ways.

Doesn't really match with the accepted "Rulings nNot Rules" adage by [that .pdf that explains OSR aesthetics whose name escapes me].

It sounds like you really appreciate discrete mechanics (separate and distinct) to stochastically generate content (randomly). Most of that is essentially automated programs open to: tailoring specifically to setting (e.g. cave = slip on bat shit), and delegating bias to probability (e.g. return home = which dangers on the way). I like them too, they greatly aid GMs by offloading creative & decision labor through automated tools.

That said, it really is not the same as "Rulings Not Rules" as that adage focuses on the power of GM adjudication in the face of setting context. It removes adherence to shared mechanistic play. Instead it embraces individualistic alteration with an eye to current situations.

You're more looking at the joy of certain preparation tools. The adage is more looking at the joy of a single table experience versus a shared Org Play experience.

I feel Daztur made a very important discovery, but didn't quite articulate it as I have in the past.

The rulings/rules dichotomy is bullshit.

His observations on the illusory time-saving of universal mechanics, in which (a) setting a target difficulty and/or modifier under a universal task resolution mechanic is the exact same mental operation as an TSR/OSR D&D GM ruling, with the difference that under TSR/OSR D&D you get to pick which dice the player is rolling; and (b) having a go-to universal task resolution mechanic does not necessarily means that all possible cases are explicitly covered. All systems are fundamentally incomplete in that they do not cover all possible cases and decisions.

As for the comprehensiveness of TSR/OSR D&D rulesets and modules, I chalk it up to people taking playtesting way more seriously than it's done today; and to playtesters being more savvy themselves, e.g. with PCs attempting off-the-wall antics more often, and generally doing a more thorough job of straining a game's or module's limits on account of the games being driven by exploration rather than plot.

So, because there's no rule in the handbooks, Jaquays made a ruling; and because you got that from him, you call it a rule. And the in-scenario-text convenience is partly a consequence of not being able to assume that you could look up something in a voluminous reference library (which would be a drag if players assumed that you not only could but should).

What I like best about OSR games is that there aren't that many rules to deal with. I can have a "just roll some dice" attitude and move on, rather than action grinding to a halt because somebody remembered seeing a rule somewhere. We had that happen when we switched from OD&D to AD&D and I didn't like it in the 1970's, still don't like it today.

I've run old TSR modules and they are fun because you get little one-line stat blocks and can focus on the game, and prep is nearly zero. I'm currently running the 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen and I feel like I have to do homework to prep before I can run a session because you have this chapter to read with all sorts of details. Just not my thing so much.

Just my two coppers.

My god, the one-line stat block. Did you ever think such an overlooked thing before would end up a marvel of simplistic beauty? I feel like an art fan during the age of Andy Warhol, discovering the aesthetic value of the ketchup bottle or soup can label.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805559My god, the one-line stat block. Did you ever think such an overlooked thing before would end up a marvel of simplistic beauty? I feel like an art fan during the age of Andy Warhol, discovering the aesthetic value of the ketchup bottle or soup can label.

Brilliant!

Quote from: Opaopajr;805423It sounds like you really appreciate discrete mechanics (separate and distinct) to stochastically generate content (randomly). Most of that is essentially automated programs open to: tailoring specifically to setting (e.g. cave = slip on bat shit), and delegating bias to probability (e.g. return home = which dangers on the way). I like them too, they greatly aid GMs by offloading creative & decision labor through automated tools.

I think I'm on board with all of that.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805423You're more looking at the joy of certain preparation tools. The adage is more looking at the joy of a single table experience versus a shared Org Play experience.

Sort of. In theory my ideal game would be one of those bullet stopping massive tomes in which there's a rule for most everything so that the players can say (without having to know basically any rules) "I want to do X" and the GM would have a rule for that. In reality those games don't work well with actual humans (in my experience) and shortcuts tend to not really give me what I want since they require a lot of GM handling so what I like is really narrow specific rules for the specific short of shit the GM expects the PCs will be hitting in the coming adventures. Rules specific enough that they can just be applied without the GM making judgement calls and for the rest the GM can make shit up.

Quote from: The Butcher;805433I feel Daztur made a very important discovery, but didn't quite articulate it as I have in the past.

The rulings/rules dichotomy is bullshit.

His observations on the illusory time-saving of universal mechanics, in which (a) setting a target difficulty and/or modifier under a universal task resolution mechanic is the exact same mental operation as an TSR/OSR D&D GM ruling, with the difference that under TSR/OSR D&D you get to pick which dice the player is rolling; and (b) having a go-to universal task resolution mechanic does not necessarily means that all possible cases are explicitly covered. All systems are fundamentally incomplete in that they do not cover all possible cases and decisions.

Right. I think that's stating it more concisely than I did as you said.

Basically universal mechanics generally do a shit job of actually reducing the number of judgement calls that a GM makes. I LIKE rules that reduce the number of judgement calls a GM makes, I just like rules that actually do that instead of providing an illusion of doing that (except rules that abstract out all of the specific fun stuff in order to streamline everything, they can go fuck off). I find that a lot of the really random exception-based rules in TSR D&D actually do an OK job of that as long as they're tailored to the sort of adventure you're running and kept to a manageable number. Pausing a game to look stuff up constantly is very very rarely worth the time spent.

Quote from: Phillip;805512So, because there's no rule in the handbooks, Jaquays made a ruling; and because you got that from him, you call it a rule.

Well there is a difference here, a rule is made up ahead of time and a ruling is made up on the fly. I prefer rules since you if make it up ahead of time it's easier to maintain the sort of reality/image of impartiality that I think is really important to the sort of GMing I like.

Of course making up a rule ahead of time for EVERYTHING would drive you insane, so that's impossible, just do as much as you can without bogging shit down.

Quote from: finarvyn;805550What I like best about OSR games is that there aren't that many rules to deal with. I can have a "just roll some dice" attitude and move on, rather than action grinding to a halt because somebody remembered seeing a rule somewhere. We had that happen when we switched from OD&D to AD&D and I didn't like it in the 1970's, still don't like it today.

I've run old TSR modules and they are fun because you get little one-line stat blocks and can focus on the game, and prep is nearly zero. I'm currently running the 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen and I feel like I have to do homework to prep before I can run a session because you have this chapter to read with all sorts of details. Just not my thing so much.

Just my two coppers.

Oh agreed completely. Gotta keep the rules to an absolutely minimum. The thing, as Butcher and I argue upthread, most of those rules that gum things up don't actually reduce the amount of rulings the GM is making, they just provide a framework to express the rulings in, often giving you the sort of both worlds. Complicated rulesets also massively increase opacity on the players' end of things since with heavy rulesets I never have a clue which rules the GM is going to bother to apply and which they'll just handwave, while with something like OD&D I have a much clearer idea of what rules are going to be used.

Also, while OSR rules are often pretty short they cover a lot of shit that just gets handwaved randomly, important shit like encounters. They're short but they're generally pretty efficient.

OK, to give an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at social mechanics.

OSR reaction rolls are pretty solid here. You use rules for things that are easy to make rules for (initial reactions before the PCs do shit) and leave things open from there. In this case the rules are incredibly important as they can mean the difference between friendly greetings and immediate attack.

With something that really tries to nail down how social mechanics work generally end up with:
-What the PCs are actually saying mattering as little as the player's narration of how they swing the sword at the orc, it's just narrating the mechanics it doesn't actually MATTER. It's just "fluff" (damn do I hate that term).
-The GM listens to what the players are saying and makes up a DC based on that which is just as much a "ruling" as the GM making shit up on the fly which means the rules aren't really accomplishing much here. By trying to make the rules cover more stuff they actually end up accomplishing less.
-Some combination of the above two.

What would probably be useful to me would be something along the lines of giving NPCs wants and desires and the PCs would be able to convince NPCs to do stuff insofar as they satisfy the NPCs' wants and by talking to them they could figure out what the NPCs want and then haggle a bit. For example an ogre could want gold, safety and entertainment. So the GM would know that the ogre joining the PCs in an attack on the dragon isn't in the cards (no safety there) but could be convinced to give the PCs information or let them pass unharmed in return for gold or entertainment, while a different ogre would have completely different wants. A reaction roll could help influence how many wants the PCs would have to satisfy to get an NPC to cooperate.

Basically then we've got three groups of games:
1) a few detailed rules, then rules-free space in between them (AD&D)
2) a lot of detailed rules for everything (3.5/PF)
3) a few vague / abstract rules, so the GM has to assign numbers or interpret (5E ??)

Pretty wide overgeneralizations - use at your peril.
for instance - while 3E is generally fairly complicated, the issue with Diplomacy in 3E is maybe that its more vague and abstract than AD&D in some areas - compared to say henchman morale rules ?- not a problem of 'too many' rules.

I've come to dislike games that are too heavy (#2) but generally, I slightly prefer the abstract systems over the old school ones. I don't find the difficulty of a "ruling" like "DC 13 or DC 15?" or "Athletics or Stealth?" as great as trying to pull out brand-new rules.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;805676Basically then we've got three groups of games:
1) a few detailed rules, then rules-free space in between them (AD&D)
2) a lot of detailed rules for everything (3.5/PF)
3) a few vague / abstract rules, so the GM has to assign numbers or interpret (5E ??)

I think we see similar patterns here, but I think that #3 isn't 5E but instead might pertain to FATE and similar "hand waving" games which emphasize story over substance.

My point had been that I prefer #1 over #2, but I think the original poster's point was that he likes #1/#2 over #3.

Quote from: finarvyn;805550I've run old TSR modules and they are fun because you get little one-line stat blocks and can focus on the game, and prep is nearly zero. I'm currently running the 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen and I feel like I have to do homework to prep before I can run a session because you have this chapter to read with all sorts of details. Just not my thing so much.

Just my two coppers.

5E is is an OK system. Just ditch published 5E adventures. It sounds like they try to hard to be pre-written stories.  We are having a blast playing 5E in the Village of Hommlet.

Games don't quite neatly fit into the categories since there's degrees of course..
 5E is maybe a little bit heavier than a good example of #3 but it maybe the closest example among the D&Ds; I think even basic D&Ds are pretty old school. FATE's very abstract but also has a lot of complexity around metagame stuff.

Quote from: The Butcher;805433I feel Daztur made a very important discovery, but didn't quite articulate it as I have in the past.

The rulings/rules dichotomy is bullshit.

His observations on the illusory time-saving of universal mechanics, in which (a) setting a target difficulty and/or modifier under a universal task resolution mechanic is the exact same mental operation as an TSR/OSR D&D GM ruling, with the difference that under TSR/OSR D&D you get to pick which dice the player is rolling; and (b) having a go-to universal task resolution mechanic does not necessarily means that all possible cases are explicitly covered. All systems are fundamentally incomplete in that they do not cover all possible cases and decisions.

Amen. And also amen at length.

I actually consider the bullshit of a A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming to be even more damaging and corrosive to effective gaming than the "RPG systems should only try to do one thing" meme that came out of the Forge.

Quote from: Opaopajr;805559My god, the one-line stat block. Did you ever think such an overlooked thing before would end up a marvel of simplistic beauty? I feel like an art fan during the age of Andy Warhol, discovering the aesthetic value of the ketchup bottle or soup can label.

In practice, I've found that the one-line stat block is mostly bullshit, too. It requires substantial rules mastery and/or a manual look-up to achieve and I'd much rather have the useful information at my fingertips.

While I don't think of it in terms of old school versus new school, I do find the concept of rulings to be helpful when I feel the system itself is taking over play. But I suppose it is really just another way of saying rules light.