Quote from: Will;806244You seem unwilling or unable to engage my point, so I'll stop.

Throwing Buicks seems irrelevant to playing Amber, but relevant to playing Marvel Superheroes. Walking in Shadow seems crucial to playing Amber and mostly irrelevant to the Marvel Universe. I'm unsurpised that neither game includes rules for both activities. If your point was anything more than no game is complete, then I missed whatever point you were trying to make and your references to games without GMs or tables only further obfuscated whatever point you intended.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;805989Making rulings is one of the most basic skills a GM needs to possess. It's like basic grammar for a writer.

The most effective way of making rulings is to do so within the consistent structure provided by a set of rules. (There's a reason why the earliest GMs very quickly developed the concept of "ability checks" in order to give themselves a universal mechanic to making rulings around.)

Boring. Sometimes you just make a one off ruling unrelated to the rules for this and only this situation. Much more fun.

QuoteAll rulings start from and are supported by the rules: That's why they're called rulings.

And when the rules don't support the in game situation at all? That's when you make a ruling. Not all rulings are extrapolations from the rules.  

QuoteThe meme of "rules, not rulings" promulgated by A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming, however, creates an artificial tension between rulings and rules. It claims that rules are anathema to rulings. This is like someone saying "grammar vs. good writing". It's not just complete nonsense, it's literally telling you to do the opposite of what you're supposed to be doing.

The claim is "the attitude that only what is in the rules is permitted is anathema to rulings", which (rulings) are about what you do when the rules don't explicitly permit something. It's an attitude adjustment, that the attitude should be "anything that isn't explicitly prohibited by the rules is permitted (and feel free to make rulings on the explicitly prohibited stuff too if it seems situationally appropriate)".

QuoteAnd then you crack open the Primer and what you discover is an endless stream of [strike]false[/strike] comparisons that mash together GM fiat, player technique, and the outcome of a given action in [strike]nonsensical[/strike] an illuminating mish-mash.

Fixed your typo!

QuoteThen you get to the weird, bullshit claim that all of this nonsense is supposedly the difference between "old school" and "new school" play. As if OD&D didn't include lots of explicit game mechanics.

Rulings not rules is about the implicit mechanics, not the explicit ones.

QuoteIt's bad coming and going.

Sounds to me that it's more that you just need more structure. Not everyone does.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;805991I don't always agree with you, but this is spot fucking on.

Not every ruling is an extrapolation.

Quote from: rawma;806050Bad DMs and bad players exist.

And if this is the norm? That's what the OSP is confronting, the rather widespread idea that if it isn't explicitly permitted by the rules it's prohibited, rather than the idea that if it isn't explicitly prohibited by the rules it's permitted (but the GM might have to make a ruling).

Quote from: Will;806241And if that seems an outlandish interpretation, if I remember correctly (on AmberMUSH and in a few Amber games I took part in), this kind of stuff got argued a lot. People were often frustrated (particularly in a MUSH, where there isn't essentially a body of extra rules/rulings the GM/players came up with).

I mean, sure, Amber Strength is better than Chaos Strength. But you have some descriptive failures when the Chaos player decides he can throw a giant boulder and the Amber player has interpreted strength differently, and is forced to either over-rule Chaos guy or have shifting rules that apply when different folks are active.

(Which may, admittedly, work for a game involving Amberites and shadows, but, again, is basically changing the game to address a lack)

Strength in Amber is relative. It just means that someone with Amber strength will, all else being equal, always win against someone with Chaos strength. So if Chaos strength guy picks up a buick* and throws it, Amber strength guy can catch it and throw it back harder, too hard for the Chaos strength guy to catch.

It's only relevant in a conflict, the rest of the time it's just shadow-play. Literally.

*Which by the setting books, i.e. the novels, they couldn't do in an earth-like shadow. But in Metropolis I'd put my money on Gerard, not Superman (unless Supes is a shapechanged Amberite), and Greyswandir would be kryptonite to boot.

As usual, people are fixated on the specifics rather than the point, which is that in a system where no information is provided about raw values, this doesn't help much because the GM/group ends up having to make up all those rulings.

Which effectively means that a bunch of system has to be written in by the group.

On the one hand, the group only bothers to make stuff they are interested in, and the material is tweaked to their tastes, but on the other hand, this is a bunch of work they have to do that they might not care for, and might conflict with other rulings or other elements of the system.

Amber was just a fairly extreme, and unusual, example of a system that provides almost no world explanation of what characters can do. The system is effectively entirely narrative -- values indicate who wins conflicts, it doesn't simulate anything specific.

Quote from: apparition13;806307Not every ruling is an extrapolation.

Name a situation that couldn't be handled by an extrapolation of an existing rule, and I'll explain how I use an extrapolation of an existing rule to handle it at the table. (I'll use 5e as my baseline, because it has a solid core mechanic).

Quote from: Will;806309As usual, people are fixated on the specifics rather than the point, which is that in a system where no information is provided about raw values, this doesn't help much because the GM/group ends up having to make up all those rulings.

Which effectively means that a bunch of system has to be written in by the group.

On the one hand, the group only bothers to make stuff they are interested in, and the material is tweaked to their tastes, but on the other hand, this is a bunch of work they have to do that they might not care for, and might conflict with other rulings or other elements of the system.

Amber was just a fairly extreme, and unusual, example of a system that provides almost no world explanation of what characters can do. The system is effectively entirely narrative -- values indicate who wins conflicts, it doesn't simulate anything specific.

That's the entire point of the system, that and manipulating situations so that you can win contests you would, by the numbers, lose. If you can't get down with that, you shouldn't be playing Amber.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;806310Name a situation that couldn't be handled by an extrapolation of an existing rule, and I'll explain how I use an extrapolation of an existing rule to handle it at the table. (I'll use 5e as my baseline, because it has a solid core mechanic).

Saying "roll with advantage" is a bit different from extrapolating from a rule for fighting on ice fighting in mud. Every improvisation is going to use some sort of mechanic; being consistent about which mechanic you use ins't the same repurposing a mechanic for a new situation isn't the same as extending a rule for one situation to a different one. But, whatever, do these.

A Leverage con. How about hacking the tech-CEO's brain so that he chooses the password they want him to?
Elsa building her castle.
- or Olaf.
Bilbo and Gollum at riddles.
- Or an alternate, but good, solution to a riddle.
Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel.
A negotiation with Richlieu in which the text and sub-text are wildly different.
Love at first sight.
Bond seducing the villain's henchwoman.
Displacer beast vs. blink dog on variably thick/thin ice.
Making peace between two Ogre tribes.
Playing rock-paper-scissors.
Vizini vs. Wesley.

Quote from: apparition13;806339Saying "roll with advantage" is a bit different from extrapolating from a rule for fighting on ice fighting in mud. Every improvisation is going to use some sort of mechanic; being consistent about which mechanic you use ins't the same repurposing a mechanic for a new situation isn't the same as extending a rule for one situation to a different one. But, whatever, do these.

1. A Leverage con. How about hacking the tech-CEO's brain so that he chooses the password they want him to?
2. Elsa building her castle.
- or Olaf.
3. Bilbo and Gollum at riddles.
- Or an alternate, but good, solution to a riddle.
4. Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel.
5. A negotiation with Richlieu in which the text and sub-text are wildly different.
6. Love at first sight.
7. Bond seducing the villain's henchwoman.
8. Displacer beast vs. blink dog on variably thick/thin ice.
9. Making peace between two Ogre tribes.
10. Playing rock-paper-scissors.
11. Vizini vs. Wesley.

Almost all of these are just skill checks. I numbered them for convenience.
1. This is a series of Charisma(deception) and Charisma(persuasion) checks. Maybe an Intelligence check of some sort to plan it out in a way that works.
2. I'd probably rule that this kind of stuff was outside the realm of D&D, BUT, I could probably riff off of a mix of magic item crafting and the keep building rules.
3. Just let the player try to figure it out, or its a Wisdom(Insight) check, alternately an Intelligence check, with the skill based on the subject matter.
4. Don't know the situation, never was into Star Trek.
5. Charisma(Persuasion) for the conversation, Wisdom(Insight) for understanding the subtext. Maybe Charisma(Deception) for sneaking in your own subtext back without being overt.
6. I'm not even sure why this would need rules.
7. That is just a Charisma(Persuasion) check.
8. Variably thin ice can be modeled using the trap rules.
9. Once again, just Charisma(Persuasion) checks.
10. Wisdom(Insight) vs Charisma(Deception).
11. Wisdom(Insight) vs Charisma(Deception).

Of course, all of this is how much you would lean on mechanics anyway. Some things I would just role play out, and of course, most of these would have roleplaying considerations before a check was even allowed, but all of these using existing rules and then making a ruling to fit the situation.

Rulings are just extensions of rules, They aren't anti-rules. The point Jason is making, and I'm agreeing with, is that there isn't a fucking dichotomy. I'm Rules AND Rulings. Not one or the other.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;8063561. This is a series of Charisma(deception) and Charisma(persuasion) checks.
Maybe an Intelligence check of some sort to plan it out in a way that works.

Except it isn't. The deck is completely loaded against the mark. The best way to really simulate it would be with advantage and disadvantage, but stackable, so the Leverage crew is rolling several dice with advantage and the mark several with disadvantage. But that is explicitly against the rules of 5E, which means the GM would have to make a ruling to overrule the rules.

Quote2. I'd probably rule that this kind of stuff was outside the realm of D&D, BUT, I could probably riff off of a mix of magic item crafting and the keep building rules.

I agree it's outside the rules, D&D doesn't do a good job with superpower like effects. I suspect I'd either steal from something like M&M to make it work. But I'd be much more likely just make it up by fiat, make an ad hoc ruling, simply so things don't grind to a halt for half an hour while I figure out how to do it and transfer it into D&D from another system.

Now your idea of magic item crafting and keep building is an actual example of extrapolating from one set of rules to a situation outside the rules. I wouldn't do it though (I have no problem with other GMs who would), since I find it easier to spend 30 seconds on an ad hoc decision than even 5 minutes looking something up.

Quote3. Just let the player try to figure it out, or its a Wisdom(Insight) check, alternately an Intelligence check, with the skill based on the subject matter.

What about the alternative solution? Do you accept it, or insist on the right one?

Quote8. Variably thin ice can be modeled using the trap rules.

Again, an example of extrapolating from one set of rules to an uncovered situation. The one I was expecting, actually. And it has the advantage of being a very good fit, and easy to apply quickly.

Quote6. I'm not even sure why this would need rules.

You're playing a Paladins and Princes(ses) variant of D&D?

Quote4. Don't know the situation, never was into Star Trek.
5. Charisma(Persuasion) for the conversation, Wisdom(Insight) for understanding the subtext. Maybe Charisma(Deception) for sneaking in your own subtext back without being overt.
7. That is just a Charisma(Persuasion) check.
9. Once again, just Charisma(Persuasion) checks.
10. Wisdom(Insight) vs Charisma(Deception).
11. Wisdom(Insight) vs Charisma(Deception).



Of course, all of this is how much you would lean on mechanics anyway. Some things I would just role play out, and of course, most of these would have roleplaying considerations before a check was even allowed, but all of these using existing rules and then making a ruling to fit the situation.

Re. bold: exactly the point. Do you roleplay it out or roll the dice is a ruling. Which subsystem or system should you use? How do you apply modifiers/DCs/adv-disadv etc.? Which ones do you use? Should you make a custom subsystem for the situation, or just make an ad hoc decision? Should you then continue to use that subsystem, or do something different in a future similar situation? Should you break the rules because they don't fit (leverage for example)? Can you analogize from something in the system (magic item creation, traps, etc.)? All of those are rulings, because they don't involve plugging the problem into a system where you don't have to make those judgment calls because it's all spelled out. Note, having spelled out subsystems rather than broadly applicable universal mechanics seems to be one of the things the OP likes about OSR,  because that's the type of ruling they find wearisome. I like them, but people are different, so custom subsystems for the OP and ad hoc rulings for me, and everyone's happy.

I'll admit my bias is toward ad hoc and breaking the rules, but that's what I enjoy doing.

QuoteRulings are just extensions of rules, They aren't anti-rules. The point Jason is making, and I'm agreeing with, is that there isn't a fucking dichotomy. I'm Rules AND Rulings. Not one or the other.

I agree, but:

1. Some GMs prefer fewer rules because they don't like feeling like their creativity is constrained. Enough to organize play, not so much to crimp their enjoyment of improvisational rulings. The line will be different for everyone. Nobody on the rulings side says rules are always bad, though they might well say "too many rules are bad" or "rules that constrain too much are bad" or "making an ad hoc ruling keeps play moving without having to grind play to a halt to look something up, or make a new subsystem, or repurpose something" and such like, with those judgments fuzzy and subjective.

2. The conflict isn't between rules OR rulings, it's between

• RAW and only RAW and never ever make a ruling on anything outside RAW, in other words the idea  (especially prominent in the 3E era) that anything not explicitly permitted is prohibited, (e.g. only thieves can sneak, you can't do anything you don't have a skill for, etc.),

vs.

• anything not prohibited is permitted, you just need to make a ruling on how to do it (and sometimes even prohibited things should be permitted).

Rulings not rules is a reaction against "if it isn't explicitly permitted it's prohibited". It might be better phrased "rulings are okay too", but that's not quite so catchy.

3. What the OP seems to want is ad hoc subsystems rather than general resolution mechanics. This pit trap works like this, and that pit trap works like that. Keep the rulebook simple, and use custom mechanics in modules/adventures for objects/events/challenges/etc. in the module or adventure, which is actually an interesting way of looking at things, and not one I can really recall seeing called out or advocated for before, at least not this explicitly. I.e. you don't need general rules for pit traps because you have specific ones for each, but since they are in the text of the adventure/module where you need them when you need them, variable rules for the same class of phenomena isn't a problem. You also don't have to remember the general rules, and handling time searching for the rule is minimal since it's right there in front of you when you need it. It's the GM equivalent of having all the mechanics the players need on the character sheet. It's not my preference, but I can certainly see the appeal.

Quote from: Will;806309As usual, people are fixated on the specifics rather than the point, which is that in a system where no information is provided about raw values, this doesn't help much because the GM/group ends up having to make up all those rulings.

Fixating on raw values misses the entire point of the Amber system and the stat auction. There are no fixed values. All stats are relative to the stats of the other players (and any relevant NPCs). Given the infinity of possible Shadows relative values actually make a lot more sense than absolute values.

What would a raw value even mean or be used for anyway in the game? After all there aren't any Buicks in Amber to throw and in Shadow you would need to create conversion values between your nominal raw value and an infinite number of Shadows which sounds like a colossal amount of pointless data generation.

Will, maybe you want to just move on to a different example. Amber is a bad example for your desire that game rules relate stats to fixed values in the game world.  Sounds like what you are looking for is something more like the old DC Heroes RPG which related the attributes to tables of logarithmic values so you could figure out who could lift and throw what and how far and fast they could throw it. The tables even allow you to figure out how long it would take Batman to read War and Peace based on his intelligence.

Quote from: apparition13;806472Except it isn't. The deck is completely loaded against the mark. The best way to really simulate it would be with advantage and disadvantage, but stackable, so the Leverage crew is rolling several dice with advantage and the mark several with disadvantage.

So... your argument that "not all rulings are extrapolations from the rules" actually boils down to "I have a different extrapolation from the rules than you do"?

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;806569So... your argument that "not all rulings are extrapolations from the rules" actually boils down to "I have a different extrapolation from the rules than you do"?

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

"not all rulings are extrapolations from the rules" = some rulings are extrapolation, some are not.

"I have a different extrapolation from the rules than you do" = here is one example of one that is an extrapolation, others may not be.

Although I'm not sure breaking a core rule of a game really qualifies as an extrapolation*, especially since making widespread use of it would break 5E's math; seems a bit bigger a deal than using traps rules for "may be thin ice".


You have any comments on the rest of the post, or are you happy cherry picking and spinning? Any comment on point 3, which I think is an actually interesting idea, and not just the bog standard quibbling we do so much here?

*Oh, sure, technically it could be an extrapolation, although in my case it's actually cross-purposing a system inspired by OTE bonus and penalty dice well before D&D came along and renamed it advantage and disadvantage, but I suspect breaking the rules is against the spirit of what Emperor Norton meant.