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.