Quote from: Lynn;6500783.x complexity causes some problems because its jam packed with all sorts of variants and alternatives.

The problem with 3.x and 4.0 is that the gaming culture got altered so that the expection to view all official rule books as core and thus permitted.

If you don't buy into that and lay down the law about what is permitted and what then the variant are not an issue.

And to be fair I realize it is not quite as simple as I am making it. As using rule books 'as is' is very convenient. Writing Majestic Wilderlands into a form easily understandable was a lot of work and many do not have the time or inclination to do that with any rule system.

Which is why it is important no only design a good system for your RPG but a good presentation as well.  

I went with the Swords & Wizardry core rules because to me they represented the essence of classic D&D.  Allowing the Majestic Wilderlands to focus on additions rather saying don't use this, etc.

Quote from: The Traveller;650080Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Ain't that the truth, heh?

Quote from: Lynn;650087The original quote seemed a little too one sided to me - a little too "Mother May I".

It really only makes sense when you put it in contrast with the other play style the Primer is talking about, which is basically the take on "the rules are the game" and "the rules override the GM" that have become so ubiquitous in some gaming circles. So the Primer basically caricatures both this "old school" and that "new school" styles to contrast them against each other and highlight the basic differences. It's a "Primer" really, and it is stereotypical by design, to make the contrast clear to new players/GMs. It's not a "manifesto" or "Thou Shalt GM That Way Or Die, Grognard!"

Quote from: Lynn;650078Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players...

Personally, I disagree with this.

Roleplaying is a shared game, with the GM as much a player as the other people at the table. Rules should be clear and available to everyone in the game.

I know many players who know the rules inside out and it helps them play the game. They know which tactics to use, what spells to use, what the effects of spells are and so on. It makes it a faster and more fun game.

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

Controversy of the day...

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

Presumably the quote in the title - the post is quite difficult to understand otherwise as you don't seem to be making a point.

Quote from: Lynn;650052My feeling is that this interpretive. Finch, you are no Jack Kennedy.

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

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

Surte, if the GM changes a rule that the players could use then he should tell you. If he changes a 6th level spell and the PCs are all 1st level wizards then what is the point of telling them?

Quote from: Lynn;650052I am not disagreeing with all of his points, but this one particularly stood out. What do you all think?

Without actually buying the book, it is difficult to know what you mean.

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

Yes. See above.

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

Depends on the circumstances. Of it is a rule that the players could reasonably use then yes. Otherwise why?

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

If you had phrased the original post in this manner it would have been a lot easier to read and understand.

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

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

That's the way I learned to play back when the game was new, and the way my friends who entered the hobby a decade later also learned (despite the preponderance then of books sold to players).

Some of them also enjoy playing, for instance, Pathfinder with more attention to the abstraction.

The preferred mode seems to be partly a generational distinction, later adopters coming more from a board-game background than from the old miniatures scene or other less 'consumer' oriented, more truly 'hobbyist' aspects of hobby gaming.

Quote from: Phillip;650085What the pioneers in fact wrote on the subject at the time, however, makes your "more modern" quip look misinformed. Your way is not the way that Arneson, Gygax, St Andre, Hargrave, Perrin, etc., advocated.

How so?

Quote from: Phillip;650085What's more 'modern' -- albeit present all those decades ago -- is your (and others' on all sides') insistence on a One True Way, on criticising as 'wrong' the way other people play.

What One True Way?

Quote from: Lynn;650078If a player want's to charge, then they need to convey that in some way, rather than just saying something about running up and striking - because not all attacks are charges.

Well, what is, then? What phenomenon, in the world the role I'm playing in inhabits, does your game-mechanical gadget represent?

If I can't play my role using plain English, without reference to your abstraction, then in my view it's simply too abstract!

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

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

Quote from: estar;650079Yes, you don't want to create a 'Mother may I' situation at your table.
No, because Finch explicitly states that the referee is to use their authority to apply common sense solutions.

If everyone is agreed on the match-up of rules and fiction as truly common sense, then it doesn't matter whether the referee is choosing the rules option or the player is.  However, sometimes common sense differs - particularly when using abstract rules like one-minute-long rounds and hit points.  The real question is what to do in the case where:

(a) if they knew the rules, the players really would want X;
(b) the referee decides based on their description that they are doing Y instead.

Personally, I like to make things simple to the players but also transparent.  So they should expect what the rules result is such that the above doesn't happen.  If they don't, then I'll inform them of their options under the rules and let them decide.  

So, for example, if I'm playing AD&D1 and the player says that he rushing at the opponent with his sword, then I might describe the "charge" option to him (+2 hit, no DEX bonus to AC, initiative based on weapon length) and ask if that's what he wants.

Quote from: Phillip;650096If I can't play my role using plain English, without reference to your abstraction, then in my view it's simply too abstract!

And that is why dissociated mechanics suck ass, in my view.

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

First, all new players are told that my games do not have "rules" (no matter what the official books might say, the "rules" are simply "guidelines for the GM"). This tends to make players who are rules lawyers or who expect to play RAW to decide to find another campaign to play in. This is an excellent thing, IMHO, as I have personally have no desire for rules lawyers or for players who only weant to play using the RAW in my campaigns.

However, for common things, sure, I tell players about them. I'll cover changes to stuff that comes up all the time in advance. However, it may be very general coverage. For example, I always tell players that game world reality trumps rules every time (e.g. you can't trip a gelatinous cube or otherwise make it "prone" no matter what the rules might say). If I was forced to run 3.x, I'd tell players that feats that try to make special snowflake powers out of something anyone can try to do with some chance of success are not required to try to do such things, they'll only give a bonus to success -- however, I would not feel any need to go through every 3.x rulebook that we might ever use and make a list of all feats that fall in this category. If I were not using some parts of the rules that regularly come up in play (like weapons vs armor in 1e), I'd let players know.

For uncommon things that might come up once in 10 or 20 sessions, I probably would not even think to tell them in advance nor would any players who would enjoy playing in my games want to deal with that level of rules minutia. Rules lawyers or players who expect the play RAW are simply never going to be happy at my table so I see no reason to burden myself or other players with trying to please them.

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

Major new or changed rules are written down and are available in a notebook at the table that players are free to look at (or even make copies of if they want to pay for photocopies). However, these rules are just like the rules in the "official" rulebooks: guidelines for the GM that are subject to being trumped by game world reality, etc.

In my games, its more "Motherfucker, may I?"

I tell all my new players to "try anything that makes sense for your character" and I will deal with the mechanics if they are not immediately obvious. I don't get the "mother may I", instead I get "I try to trip him with my spear and pin him, what do I roll?"

In my OD&D game, you make an attack roll, if successful your foe is tripped and you have set vs. charge if your opponent and auto-initiative if they try to attack or get up. There may be some modifiers to your attack roll based on size, your foe's DEX, etc.

And what if you got pinned by the spear? You may have an idea about distracting the foe, grabbing the spear and quickly rolling away. Sounds cool, make a Saving Throw and there will be modifiers based on relative STR scores, how you are doing the distraction, etc.

Quote from: Piestrio;650069Which rules to use and how to use them is my call, not the players. Similarly what the character is actually doing in the fiction is the players call, not the rulebooks's.

Yes.

I want immersion in our story, not noses in rulebooks.

Quote from: Lynn;650078When you create a house rule, do you explicitly tell players there's a house rule?

Depends.

If I houserule stuff that affects the only NPC side of the system, affect how monsters may work, I don't tell the players. But when I am running 4e, I use +1W for damage against bloodied targets and bloodied foes make a Save or Flee, so I let the players know that up front. AKA, you will be taking more damage once you are hurt, but your foes may decide to live another day if you are winning.

Quote from: The Traveller;650080Not trying to start a ragefight here at all, but I wonder is the popularity of the OSR with this kind of GMing style due to the relative simplicity and familiarity of these systems to those GMs.

Ragefight!!!

I agree with you somewhat. Rules-light games mean that everyone can easily grasp the crunch without the nose-in-book syndrome and rule-checking that has killed every 3e campaign I have played.

For me, I won't tolerate rules bitching at my table when I GM. Fuck that shit. This is my fun time too. My "solution" is to give the players the benefit of the doubt and bend toward saying Yes more than No to their crazy ideas...and then sending more monsters.

Also, a lot of it is the freedom of getting off the grid. I use minis, but only for relative positioning and visualization.

Quote from: Phillip;650096If I can't play my role using plain English, without reference to your abstraction, then in my view it's simply too abstract!

Players in my games are expected to describe what their characters are doing in plain English -- with as little "rulespeak" as possible. It makes for much more immersive play and puts rules experts and very casual players on the same footing. Of course, to me, a good set of RPG rules is one that facilitates this by getting out of the way and fading into the background. If the game requires a lot of thinking and speaking in terms of the rules, then chances are good I will not be playing that game.

Quote from: RandallS;650105First, all new players are told that my games do not have "rules" (no matter what the official books might say, the "rules" are simply "guidelines for the GM." This tends to make players who are rules lawyers or who except to play RAW to decide to find another campaign to play in. This is an excellent thing, IMHO, as I have personally have desire for rules lawyers or for players who only weant to play using the RAW in my campaigns.

I am of a like mind.

In the early days, they were explicitly not "rules" but suggestions. That's not merely to the extent of, "If you want to make up your own methods, then you need to publish a definitive codex for players to peruse."

It's to the extent of not considering such an artifact obligatory at all, even for the GM's private reference. Formal collections of algorithms are either useful or not, but it is not necessary to follow them slavishly.

It's also perfectly fine to have such a text, if that's how people like to play.

As a commercial interest, it's certainly great if you can get thousands of people to consider it not only actually meaningful, but even quite important, whether the game at hand is fairly described as Mausoleums & Misanthropes Version 12.7.4, with specified sections of Supplements I and III, Annex 5, Modules A, B and F, ad nauseum.

It's not so great if people simply enjoy playing "Sally's campaign," discovering how the world works through exploration in play, blissfully uninterested in the details of the machinery behind the GM screen.

Quote from: Spinachcat;650110I don't get the "mother may I", instead I get "I try to trip him with my spear and pin him, what do I roll?"

Same here. The people in my group usually don't care about what number-crunching went into assigning a probability; they just want to toss the dice!

The thing with rules lawyers is that when they happen not to like a probability, they turn it into a pretty dreary argument. Someone who has more common sense reasons for suggesting other odds tends in my experience both to raise disputes less often and to do so more constructively.

"Rules are for the referee", much like "rulings not rules" a style of play. Its not everyone's style of play. Its a style of play that tends to appeal to older gamers, as well as those who have been gming for a long time. Its a style that pisses of a lot of people who don't understand it. Its a style that makes powergamers feel helpless and angry.