Old School RPG Principles, part 2 - Rulings, Not Rules!

  Old School RPG Principles, Part 1 - Rulings, Not Rules!

     Probably the most cited Old School principle - almost a mantra - is "Rulings, Not Rules!" The game master - the referee or judge - makes rulings in the course of the game, deciding how things will work mechanically (ideally only doing so in the absence of offical rules on a given situation). This is a principle of Old School game thinking going all the way back to the very beginning, when rule sets were necessarily quite limited, and there simply were no rules for many situations that could arise in a game scenario. In the absence of an "official" rule, the game master, as referee, was expected to make a "ruling" on how it should work. 

     Of course, we live in an age of rules bloat. Even as early as 1st edition D&D (AD&D), there was a recognition that there could be such a thing as "too many" rules (I remember a lot of gamers being skeptical of Unearthed Arcana when it was published - did we really need all these new rules?). The problem has only grown with each new edition of D&D, and other RPGs grew likewise, with the publication of countless "splatbooks" extending each game potentially endlessly. We have more options for findinng rules for any given situation in almost ever game in print today than could ever have been imagined back in 1974. 

     But again, do we need all that? Do we want it?

     The simple answer from an Old School perspective is . . . no. It is neither necessary nor desirable for rule sets to cover every possible contingency that might arise in a scenario. A good rule set thoroughly covers the most likely situations . . . and allows the game master the license - the duty - of filling in the gaps. The best rule sets have flexible interpretations baked it. For example, the Luck mechanics in DCC RPG give a nearly infinitely adaptable tool for the Judge to adjudicate situations. These are not necessarily RAW (rules-as-written), but a tool for making rulings. Who gets attacked first? Whoever has the lowest Luck. Who gets the first or best opportunity? Whoever has the highest Luck. No rule to cover whether or not something is possible? Make a Luck check! Nobody needs infinite tables and charts and rules to cover this stuff - as Judge, I often decide on the fly - "Who gets hit by the flying shapnel?" "Oh, easy - who has the lowest Luck?" 

     A good game has rules. Without rules, it isn't a game. And a game isn't fun if it feels like it is all arbitrary, But rulings from a game master ought not to be arbitrary, ought (in fact) to have a firm basis on existing rules. But the rules should be light enough to be manageable, useable, and open to interpretation - rulings - by the game master.

     A corollary to this principle - how much does system matter? Can you run an awesome game with a terrible system? Seems possible. Can you run a terrible game with a great system? Oh yeah - happens all the time. So . . . does system matter? Yes, but not as much as some people think. But ultimately, system matters less than the people playing the game, just as rulings (how the rules are used) matter more than the rules themselves. 

     "Rulings, Not Rules!" - it's not just a popular Old School mantra. It's good sense. 

Old School RPG Principles, part 1 - Choices (Real Choices, No Quantum Ogres, and No Fudging Dice Rolls)

 Old School RPG Principles, Part 1 - Choices

     As mentioned in my last post, I've been thinking a lot about my principles as a game master and game designer for old school RPG gaming. The first principle I wrote about in my notebook was "choices."

     RPGs are all about choices. "So . . . what do you want to do?" is one of the most iconic utterances of the game master. In most games, players make choices for their characters, and game masters adjudicate the outcomes of those choices, using dice to resolve elements of chance.

     So why is this a principle that even needs to be discussed?

     First of all, there is a difference between someone telling a story and somebody refereeing a TTRPG. Player choices have to be real choices. So I strongly opposed the concept of the "quantum ogre". If you haven't heard of the quantum ogre, it is this idea that if the GM wants the players to encounter an ogre, it will happen regardless of the players' choices. In the usual example, players have to choose between a door on the right and a door on the left. The players may or may not be aware there is an ogre in the dungeon they are trying to avoid. They choose the door on the left. The text says that the ogre is behind the door on the right. But because the GM has decided he wants the PCs to encounter the ogre, the GM decided that the ogre is actually behind the door on the left! Once this happens, you're no longer playing a game, the GM is just telling a story.

     But another consideration in this example - how did the players come to choose the door on the left in the first place? Is it even a real choice if it is simply a choice between two identical doors with nothing to distinguish them? If it can be resolved with a coin flip, it is not much of a choice! Real choices require context, which is another important component here. Players should be able to obtain context to make their choices. Imagine PCs examining the two doors, maybe listening at the doors. They can hear the ogre's heavy breathing, or muttering behind the door on the right. Based on the clues provided, they choose the door on the left. They made an informed choice. 

     Now, I'm not going to say that PCs don't draw the wrong conclusions from their clues. Context is rarely complete, and incomplete or misunderstood context leads to incorrect choices. Sometimes players are going to be surprised by the outcome of their choices - "WHAT?!? But we thought the ogre was somewhere else!" That can happen. BUT that is not the same as simply overriding the players' choice and making their efforts fail despite the fact that they made the correct choice! Again, once you do that, you're not really playing the game anymore! 

     Another factor in making real choices is abiding by the consequences of those decisions. Deciding that the room on the right is actually the room on the left "for the story" is an example of not abiding by the consequences of the players' choices. Another example is fudging dice rolls. Let the dice fall where they may! Imagine a player decides their character should search for clues. That's often a good decision! The outcome of this decision is uncertain, however. Dice help us adjudicate the outcome when there is uncertainty. So if the rules state that a player character is supposed to find a clue on any roll greater than a 3, and the GM rolls a 5, the consequence of the decision to search for clues is supposed to be finding a clue. If the GM then decides that giving the player the clue would "ruin the story," well, again, you're not playing a TTRPG anymore. You're just telling a story. The whole point of rolling dice is to adjudicate outcomes. If you're going to fudge the dice rolls, why even roll the dice? Why ever roll dice? Just decide what happens (which is what you're going to do anyway) and skip the die roll . . . but understand you're no longer playing the game. You're just storytelling. And people who signed up to play a game may not be happy that they're not actually being allowed to play. 

     Roll dice in the open, and let the dice fall where they may. The characters win a huge victory you didn't foresee? Cool! They characters are all killed in a TPK? OK! What happens, happens. That is the point of playing a game. A game that can't be lost - or can't be won - isn't much fun! So let the choices - informed choices, real choices - be real choices, with real consequences . . . and if the dice dictate a certain outcome where there is an element of chance, allow chance to have its place. The GM's role is a referee, adjudicate, judge - not to tell the story they want to tell!