TheRPGSite

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! :D

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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3924/roleplaying-games/rules-vs-rulings).

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.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;805783I 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.

Why?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;805783In 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.

Interesting. When I run 5E I do so from stat blocks that mostly fit on one page:
Name, Initiative, Hit Points, AC, hit bonus, damage.

Sometimes there are special things the critters can do, but that's most of what I need to know in order to run an encounter. Sometimes I don't bother with initiative and just use my die roll. Cuts things down even more.

A great example of 'rulings' being a mess is Amber.

'How much can a guy with Amberite Strength lift?'
"Um. More than a guy with Chaos Strength."
'(stare)'


Mind you, the issue here is that Amber highlights the lack of information rulings-systems give. In a game of D&D, you might have a certain dial of what kind of activities you expect, like 'people are reasonably close to real people' and then you are essentially handwaving in 'like real life.'

Actually, which makes me realize that one way to sort of combine the two is to have a cohesive body that people can be familiar with, which essentially _serves_ as a body of rules without having to be explicitly listed out. Like 'real life' or 'like you see in Star Wars.'

Obviously that isn't perfect, as per every argument about what you can do in RL or Star Wars or whatever gets you.

Quote from: Will;805841A great example of 'rulings' being a mess is Amber.

'How much can a guy with Amberite Strength lift?'
"Um. More than a guy with Chaos Strength."
'(stare)'

Two answers seem obvious.*

1. Why do you care how much a guy can lift? (In other words, your question lacks any context and as far as I know, Amber is a heavily context driven game.)

2. Back half of a Cadillac as long as the ground is firm. But I may be misremembering.


* Never played Amber. Read the books mabye 30 years ago.

'Can I throw this rock? This boulder? This anvil? The Buick?'

Stuff comes up.

'Can I jump over this ravine? Can I jump on top of this house?'

Quote from: Will;805843'Can I throw this rock? This boulder? This anvil? The Buick?'

Stuff comes up.

'Can I jump over this ravine? Can I jump on top of this house?'

Can you tell me, or find it in the PHB, what's the required Strength score for doing all those things in, say, D&D 3.5e? Or 5e, or NWoD, or most RPGs, for that matter.

3.5e:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm
(Carrying, lift/drag)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm
Improvised weapons, match with existing weapons. So if there is an existing thrown weapon, you can, otherwise no.

Giants, however, have special ability to throw boulders:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm

And I believe there are special feats or abilities or whatnot for PCs to do similar.

Jumping is easy, all listed here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

Similar with climb and a bunch of other specific real values for stuff.

5e has similar carry/lift/drag rules, I don't know about the other stuff.

Superhero games often have stuff like this, because throwing weird shit is generally more common. (I don't have a ruleset handy, but I'm PRETTY sure M&M has a way to do this in various editions)

So, other than 3.5e (probably the most played and annotated game on the planet in the last 10 years) SRD (not the core rulebook), no rules for jumping.

And there are no explicit rules for throwing stuff, just carrying, lifting, and vaguely handwavey guidelines for improvised weapons.

Quote from: The Butcher;805901So, other than 3.5e (probably the most played and annotated game on the planet in the last 10 years) SRD (not the core rulebook), no rules for jumping.

And there are no explicit rules for throwing stuff, just carrying, lifting, and vaguely handwavey guidelines for improvised weapons.

You do realize the SRD is all pulled from the core three right?

And yeah, Hero also has rules for all that. As does Mutants and Masterminds I'm pretty sure.

Most games I've played in which character strength goes WAY above the norm include some rules to contextualize just how strong that is, even if its just listing how much they can lift.

The jumping rules are right from the core books. I'm pretty sure it didn't change significantly from 3e.

The rules for throwing stuff IS pretty explicit: you can throw an improvised object so long as it can be roughly equated to an existing weapon, and then you have an 'improvised weapon' penalty.

So, in other words, you are wrong, but utterly committed to never giving ground. Got it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;8057115E 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. :)

Phandelver in the starter set is every bit as good as Hommlet. The two dragon modules are meh.

Tell you what, Butcher, tell me how many game systems I have to quote and how popular they need to be before you'll concede that 'actual numbers' aren't unusual in game systems.

No need to get your panties in a bunch.

I asked you to show me rules for two situations (how far one can jump, and how heavy an object one can throw), in three different games (3.5e, 5e, nWoD).

You gave me rules for one (jumping) in one of these games (3.5e).

The "rule" you gave me for throwing is no rule at all, but a guideline to do what any GM with half a brain will do -- extrapolate from existing stuff -- and does nothing to answer the question you yourself posed (how much Strength does one need to throw something that weighs X).

Superhero games like M&M and Hero usually feature more specific rules for this because it's a genre trope to have superstrong combatants throwing implausibly heavy inanimate objects at each other.

But fantasy, horror or SF games? Only very rarely.

Even those of the new-school, oh-so-logical, unified-task-resolution persuasion.

Which is the entirety of my point: all game systems are incomplete.

5e does have the rules for jumping, that one I know, because I've been thinking of how to adjust it to make Athletics proficiency make you jump further.

5e rules are: you can long jump a distance in feet equal to your strength score, you can high jump a distance in feet equal to 3 + strength mod. Half distance on both if you don't get a 10 ft running start. (there are extra rules for landing in rough terrain or clearing a hurdle on a long jump, and a suggestion to allow a Strength (Athletics) check to sometimes jump higher (but oddly not LONGER)).

All rulesets require some filling in, but I think that things like benchmarks for Strength well above human isn't something that is that uncommon if its a setting where the players will likely be able to achieve it.

(I wouldn't know nWoD because I have never been interested, got burned out on oWoD)

Quote from: Will;805916Tell you what, Butcher, tell me how many game systems I have to quote and how popular they need to be before you'll concede that 'actual numbers' aren't unusual in game systems.

Will is right, the usual case for RPGs is to use actual numbers not the reverse.

Fate is one of the few popular RPGs that leave most of the numbers undefined in favor of Does this happen? and what are the results in terms of the narrative.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917No need to get your panties in a bunch.

I asked you to show me rules for two situations (how far one can jump, and how heavy an object one can throw), in three different games (3.5e, 5e, nWoD).

You gave me rules for one (jumping) in one of these games (3.5e).

Uh, what? I gave you rules for several things (jumping, dragging, lifting, carrying) for 3.5e and 5e.
I've never played NWoD, so no clue. I wouldn't be surprised if they had something similar.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917The "rule" you gave me for throwing is no rule at all, but a guideline to do what any GM with half a brain will do -- extrapolate from existing stuff -- and does nothing to answer the question you yourself posed (how much Strength does one need to throw something that weighs X).

Sure, in this one example that I pulled out of thin air, yes, 3.5e and 5e don't have a firm rule, other than some inference and extrapolation.

I'll point out, though, that that is still more than Amber does.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917Superhero games like M&M and Hero usually feature more specific rules for this because it's a genre trope to have superstrong combatants throwing implausibly heavy inanimate objects at each other.

Yes. Systems generally have details to cover what you expect to do.
Rulings-ish systems like Amber, don't.

Quote from: The Butcher;805917Which is the entirety of my point: all game systems are incomplete.

That's great, except this subthread started with you taking me to task for mentioning that a lot of games have actual numbers for a bunch of stuff.

And then claimed there were no such rules in 3.5e and 5e.

Which there are.

So... why are you arguing with me, again?

Lots of games have rules for lifting stuff and throwing stuff.
The issue generally seems to be with detailing rules for throwing a Buick that don't lead to players determining this is a Gold build for half-orc razorpaladins, due to DPS 23% above tier-B2 martial adequacy.

Yes, all rpg rules sets are incomplete unless we arbitrarily limit possibilties a la boardgames; in other words, they are  meant to be incomplete.

However, various people establish rules for various things, depending on their particular interests. One wants rules for inebriation, another for dropped oil lamps, another for mixing potions, another for foraging and basket weaving, another for running a Rat on a Stick franchise in a dungeon, another for childbearing ...

Some people would not consider the bat-shit formalism a proper rule unless it's applied every time there's bat shit - which is basically how we get handbooks that require handtrucks (or a column of porters) to haul to the table.

Quote from: The Butcher;805787

QuoteI 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.

Why?

Making 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.)

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

The 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.

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

Then 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.

It's bad coming and going.

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.)

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

I don't always agree with you, but this is spot fucking on.

Quote from: Will;805923Uh, what? I gave you rules for several things (jumping, dragging, lifting, carrying) for 3.5e and 5e.

Appreciate the additioonal information, but I know that most games have rules for lifting and carrying.

The detailed parameters for jumping were a neat surprise. Maybe I'll adapt the 5e ones to my OSR games.

But throwing? Outside of superhero RPGs, I've never seen this sort of rule, and it's always been a quibble at my gaming table whether the fighter with a girdle of giant strength can pick up a statue and throw it at a foe (if it's the right size I usually house-rule it as a thrown boulder; if it's smaller, proportionately less damage, and bigger, it's a no), or a fallen column and use it as a bludgeon (I usually rule that it's too big to be wieldly for a human-sized combatant, even with giant strength).

Quote from: Will;805923Sure, in this one example that I pulled out of thin air, yes, 3.5e and 5e don't have a firm rule, other than some inference and extrapolation.

Which was my point all along. The book itself is telling you, "we're not writing a frickin' rule for this. Here's how you make a ruling."

Quote from: Will;805923And then claimed there were no such rules in 3.5e and 5e.

I didn't. I don't do Socratic method while arguing with strangers on the Internet. It can be construed as condescending.

Quote from: Will;805923So... why are you arguing with me, again?

I'm not. I don't do Internet shout-down matches. You seem to expect an argument, I was hoping for a conversation. Merry Christmas. :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;805989The 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.

I cannot possibly defend Matt's

Having entered the hobby in the early 1990s, I can safely say that there were a fair number of people who handled all or most situations not explicitly covered by BECMI/RC D&D and AD&D 2e (the chief D&D rulesets of that day and place) as an unlifelike, videogamey restriction.

If a paladin wanted to sneak, they wouldn't even say "your plate armor is too noisy for this", or if a magic-user tried to pick a two-handed sword, they wouldn't even come up with something as simple as "sure, but you're going to roll to hit at -5 (or whatever) and can't possibly cast a spell with a big piece of metal in your hand." They'd just go "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" like an error message.

I remember at least one player who exploited this to his advantage, using improvised weapons and doing improbable things. And when the DM went "error message" he'd just go, "why not?" to the DM's consternation and everyone's amusement.

I've always found this funny, to be honest, which is why I can't really agree with Matt Finch's wording on the Primer. But maybe a generation after unified task resolution mechanics, it is necessary to wean players and GMs who are newcomers to TSR/OSR D&D of the notion that they're "necessary" when the sorts of probability "guesstimates" that DMs are called upon to do all the time do not really depend on using always the same dice.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;805959Lots of games have rules for lifting stuff and throwing stuff.
The issue generally seems to be with detailing rules for throwing a Buick that don't lead to players determining this is a Gold build for half-orc razorpaladins, due to DPS 23% above tier-B2 martial adequacy.

You'll never stop some types of player from doing that. Ever. Can't be done.

Taking assistance away from a game just because some people may abuse it, simply makes the game worse. It robs the rookie GM of guidance and advice. It forces the GM to make rules calls, but doesn't give them the framework necessary to make these calls within, so they are more likely to be bad calls.

Ah, in future, Butcher, you might want to use some conversational framing language so people know where you coming from.

Generally when people say 'where is X listed? In what game?' in a terse reply where someone else said 'under what context would this be important?', it's often a bullshit I NEED REFERENCES kind of internet argument.

Something like 'huh, I'm not really familiar with X... does it get used a lot?' or 'there might be rules for a bunch of stuff, but throwing rules don't seem to come up much.'

Speaking of jumping, in 5e D&D did anyone notice a character with 20 strength can jump 8 feet into the air?

Quote from: The Butcher;806021Which was my point all along. The book itself is telling you, "we're not writing a frickin' rule for this. Here's how you make a ruling."

The rules for most of the games I play do say "Here's how much you can lift and carry, and how much things weigh". There's a lot to extrapolate from for the edge cases that are not included; usually it comes down to a ruling only because the GM didn't think about it in advance, and the ruling is a lot easier when there's some starting point. So, a statue of an ostrich made of solid bronze at 1-to-1 scale; a few quick searches of the internet suggest it would weigh around 3000 pounds. If you're swinging it by the legs or head, there's a ruling on how quickly it breaks off, but no ruling needed for throwing it (beyond things GMs already have to do like deciding what it's a statue of or what it's made of). It's a different story if there's no rules at all for missiles of any sort.

QuoteHaving entered the hobby in the early 1990s, I can safely say that there were a fair number of people who handled all or most situations not explicitly covered by BECMI/RC D&D and AD&D 2e (the chief D&D rulesets of that day and place) as an unlifelike, videogamey restriction.

If a paladin wanted to sneak, they wouldn't even say "your plate armor is too noisy for this", or if a magic-user tried to pick a two-handed sword, they wouldn't even come up with something as simple as "sure, but you're going to roll to hit at -5 (or whatever) and can't possibly cast a spell with a big piece of metal in your hand." They'd just go "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" like an error message.

I remember at least one player who exploited this to his advantage, using improvised weapons and doing improbable things. And when the DM went "error message" he'd just go, "why not?" to the DM's consternation and everyone's amusement.

Bad DMs and bad players exist. Encourage the ones who want to improve. Boot any player who exploits anything to his advantage from your game.

Unless you're playing Advanced Dungeons and Discourse, "why can't my mage wear armor?" in a game that doesn't allow that is about like asking "why can't my knight move to an adjacent square?" in chess. But unlike chess, the DM should have some answer to "why is that rule in this simulation?" - the gods decree it under the Celestial Treaty of the Second Age, non-precious metal in quantity and close proximity prevents spell casting, using armor requires skill that a mage necessarily neglected to learn or practice, whatever.

Quote from: Ladybird;806027You'll never stop some types of player from doing that. Ever. Can't be done.

Taking assistance away from a game just because some people may abuse it, simply makes the game worse. It robs the rookie GM of guidance and advice. It forces the GM to make rules calls, but doesn't give them the framework necessary to make these calls within, so they are more likely to be bad calls.

As advised above, boot that kind of player if they won't stop. This is a much better response than mine, but I've typed too much to just discard my post so you're all stuck with it.  Merry Christmas to all. :D

Quote from: Will;805843'Can I throw this rock? This boulder? This anvil? The Buick?'

Yes. Yes, but not as far. Yes, but even less far. No.

Quote'Can I jump over this ravine? Can I jump on top of this house?'

Yes. Yes if it is a Ranch. No if it is an urban apartment house. Otherwise you can jump up high enough to catch the edge of the roof and pull yourself up.

These examples still seem kind of pointless in a game of Amber since most things (so far as I understand the game based on the books) are either vs. more or less normals - in which case true blood Amberites are far superior - or vs. other Amberite types and other supernormals in which case you already know who is stronger than whom based on the stat auction or GM creature creation and you can just compare those stats with any adjustments for clever ideas or situation.

That presumes play never addresses the actual world itself, or that it's highly narrative and you basically can do anything until someone else is involved.

And 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)

Quote from: Will;806241That presumes play never addresses the actual world itself, or that it's highly narrative and you basically can do anything until someone else is involved.

I presume there is some point to these  actions beyond a schoolboy theoretical argument like who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk. You didn't provide any additional context, but the answers I gave seem to adequately address the world itself. Is there some particular interpretation that seems unclear or that you want to take issue with?

QuoteI 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.

Does not Amber (like virtually all table top RPGs) use a GM whose role includes providing consistency of interpretation when players disagree?

If you want to change the situation to a GM-less game or to a non-table top GM-less MUD/MUSH you've strayed well beyond a discussion of OSR-style games altogether.

You seem unwilling or unable to engage my point, so I'll stop.

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.