Get 10% off of #intotheam apparel: intotheam.com/questingbeast The Waking of Willowby Hall (PDF): bit.ly/WillowbyDTRPG Jim Henson's Labyrinth (print): bit.ly/LabyrinthRPG Matt Finch's Old-School Primer: friendorfoe.com/d/Old%20School%20Primer.pdf Goblin Punch's article: goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2016/02/osr-style-challenges-rulings-not-rules.html The Labors of Hercules as OSR challenges: questingblog.com/the-labors-of-heracles-as-osr-obstacles/ List of OSR challenges: goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2016/03/1d135-osr-style-challenges.html Goblin Punch's OSR tools: goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2015/01/d100-minor-magical-items.html Chris McDowall's OSR tools: www.bastionland.com/2016/01/d100-oddities-for-new-characters.html
I feel these 2 concepts could be expanded onto a dedicated video. Solutions without problems and problems without solutions, and the players connecting them.
Original D&D told players to use the Chainmail rules to resolve combat, and to use the Outdoor Survival game to resolve wilderness travel. So the idea seems to be that most situations are handled by the DM ruling on the players' choices; uncertain situations are handled with a simple die roll; and chaotic situations are handled with a minigame add-on. That's what overland hex crawling and round-by-round combat are in D&D: minigames. That's why the game has both magic items that are "solutions without problems" (I love that phrase) and also +1 swords. The Immovable Rod is for normal play, whereas the +1 sword is for the combat minigame.
The main issue I always had with "rulings not rules" is it puts a lot of stress on an inexperienced GM, or even a GM just not used to a particular set of mechanics. I have been playing for so long, I can handle things, but the GM just coming up with rules for falling damage,. disease, poison, or whatever, is pretty hard without killing off a lot of characters while you get the nuances right.
part of this as well is that even with an experienced GM, it also creates a lot of strain if that GM is running for a group they haven't played with before, expectations are a big thing, and a session 0, while it exists to make sure those expectations are understood and aligned, it is not realistically possible to do that completely when those expectations are pretty wide. People who are experienced sprinters are gonna have different expectations on how fast someone physically capable should be able to sprint compared to someone who's a weight lifter, the expectations vary from context to context, but a defined ruleset everyone has access to means everyone is on the same page when it comes to a lot of the expectations of what's physically possible, so that session 0 can now focus on what is realistically possible to achieve in a more grand context of the campaign, and what sorts of things the group expects to be most focused on, like tone and genre
Inspired by the sampo, I once gave the party a salt shaker that would never run out. Anything you put into it had to be a powder and you had to shake it to get that powder out, but it would never run dry. Of course, they put gold in it right away...
That reminds me of a legend of how the North Sea got its salt. A peasant acquired a magic hand-mill that could grind out anything, but needed a magic word to stop. He became rich because he knew the word, but it was stolen by a sea captain who asked it to mill salt that he could then sell (because salt was very valuable back then). The captain didn't know the word, and when it didn't stop, it sank his ship under the weight of all its salt and it is at the bottom of the North Sea to this day, keeping the water full of salt.
One problem I run into is that players want consistency in rulings, and they're usually right to. When I rule on something, that means I'll have to write down how I ruled, so I can remember to do it the same way next time. This is essentially the same as making a new rule. So, it's tricky. When do we want rules? When do we want rulings? When do we want to make new rules via rulings? What I've started doing is telling players how I will handle something before they take an action. Ex. PC: "my swashbuckler will swing from the chandelier, kick one guard in the head, and draw his rapier, and run the other guard through." Me: "Okay, cool! I'm going to call for a DEX check to swing from the chandelier. If you fail, you'll take 2d6 falling damage and lose the next round getting up. If you succeed, you'll surprise the guards, but you can only kick one of them in the face on one round and stab the other on a subsequent round. Do you still want to do that?" (Or however I rule... not necessarily saying this is how I'd really rule, just an example of how I'd let them choose a different action if they don't like how I'd handle it.)
I love that approach. It's very similar to what I do. A great way around that "locked in" thing is to say "in this instance, in these circumstances, I'm going to say 'x' because I think it's cool. But I might be wrong about that, so we can revisit it."
Yeah, putting that info up front is something I've started making a habit of as well. For one, it helps make players feel in control of their own destiny, even if it does come down to the same die roll. Knowing the risks, they don't end up feeling cheated if things don't go as they hoped or expected. The transparency also fosters a more cooperative relationship between players and DM, I feel. But for me, the best part about doing it this way is to create tension. When you establish stakes and risks beforehand, that die roll suddenly becomes a lot more exciting. Particularly powerful when combined with the principle of rolling dice very sparingly - only in situations that involve genuine risk and uncertainty. If I can't think of an interesting or impactful consequence of a failed roll, I don't call for one.
I really love Questing Beast. Such a great job respecting the old traditions. As a 58 year old gamer who was there at the (not so much dawn, but early morning, lol) of D&D, to have so many love letters to OSR games and the good old days is great. Always enjoy you, sir!
Being one of those grognard guys, when I saw the title of the video without checking context it immediately got my hackles up. Should have known better - this is more excellent content. The statement at 7:23 about the fun of watching players overcome OSR style problems was spot on. It's definitely the best part of being a DM AND it tests and encourages my own creativity and imagination when creating the next set of challenges. The term/phrase "problem without a solution" is now part of my RPG lexicon. Off to check GP's blog now. Thanks for this!
"What do you intend to happen?" is always a great question to ask players when they start describing actions. And likewise for players, if you explicitly tell your GM why you are doing something, they can better tell you if you succeed. So often I've seen something that started out looking like moon-logic turn into a good idea once everyone is on the same page.
Totally agreed! I have a hard time anticipating what my players will do more than often, so if they tell me their desired result, and what they want to do to achieve it, I can arbitrate the rolls and narration so much easier.
"What is your intent?" And "If you succeed at the roll, what is it you get?" Are some of my most commonly used phrases at the table. Getting the intent let's everyone get on the same page and if discussion is needed we're all clear what we're discussing.
I'm conflicted on this. I read through the Goblin Punch article and landed on this comment which stuck with me: "There is no such thing as a ruling. The DM is making up a rule and adjudicating its results." I'm not super plugged into the OSR community, but from the outside a lot of it seems like an outsized reaction to 3.5. As if players literally can't look up from their character sheet; that if they don't have a "dispel magic mushroom circle" ability they just stop playing. My group has primarily played 5e and 13th Age and we've never had this problem. Maybe I'm lucky. But when I had a beholder ask them to sabotage a nearby cultist without it looking like a direct attack, they had a great time. (They convinced the acolytes to unionize and rebel, then tipped the scales of the fight in their favour.) Or when a father asked them to check on his daughter at a clinic who he wasn't allowed to see, they cast Minor Illusion on the halfling bard to make him look like a child and be admitted himself. Was that OSR? Was that rulings not rules? Maybe? It was before I'd even heard the term. I guess ultimately, if I were being snarky, I'd say I fall into the camp of encouraging creative use of abilities on their character sheet, not throwing their sheet in the trash and playing Calvinball. Instead of "rulings not rules" I believe in "good rules lead to good rulings." (Like Forbidden Lands! We had a blast with that.) Ok, semi-coherent rant over. I might change my mind in an hour. Thanks for the video anyway, I love all Questing Beast videos!
Exaaactly, a firm set of rules isn't opposed to creativity, it's a great tool in enabling creative problem solving My favorite system is pf1e for this reason, a system where damn well everything you can think of can be accounted for by the rules, but thats just means your toolbox stays consistent, but that doesn't mean your problems stay equally consistent, it drives creative uses of existing abilities instead
I agree, I think that if a game goes super hard into "rulings not rules" then it's sort of destined to be Calvinball. Alternatively, the rulings become rules that are followed at the table and we're back to the starting point. Not that there's anything wrong with making up your own game, but the whole super granular discussion about how to handle these OSR situations just seem like rediscovering the wheel with extra steps. Everyone has a different preference to the amount of rules and mechanics in their TTRPG but for me personally a lot of this discourse seems to boil down to "new bad". The video is really good advice for all sorts of games, and as you mention you can absolutely (and probably even by default) use stuff written on a character sheet for good. It doesn't stop you from creative thinking and for example the 5e books mention that the DM adjucates situations as they deem fit. The silly book does not say you can't do anything that's not on your scrap of paper.
@@Peberro I replied to the base post previously, but youtube appears to have deleted it for some reason, but generally, yeah, regardless of how many rules you have in a system, a bit part of the system is that the rules are there to serve you. With dnd3.5e, and especially pf1e, the system which is basically just a refined version of dnd3.5e, a big part of those systems is giving you tools to represent whatever you want to do with the rules of the game, rather than saying what you're allowed to do, they're telling you the provided ways to do it. With a lot of this constantly misses a few of the consistent rules damn near every dnd edition has had, and that's only using the rules when they serve you, and another one being that with the common complaints about things like skill checks is that even with a lot of that, one of the rules is that you're required to describe what you're doing before you roll, the roll is just to represent the elements of chance that can make even the most skilled person mess up in applying their skills. The rules in these systems don't limit what you can do, in fact, they do quite the opposite, they mostly make it easier to do a wider array of things With systems with very loose rules, you're restricted immensely by the limits of communication, as you're having to go over everything and seeing whether anything you're trying to achieve is viewed as reasonable to everyone, and it's offloading to the gm in the moment what the guys who designed the system were payed to do by you buying their system. Beyond that in systems with few rules at all, that's just the system being incomplete, it's a lot easier to remove rules than it is to come up with new ones that work well, and that's what you're buying a ttrpg rulebook for, that set of tools. Also, the OSR term is also just ridiculous because the old systems were largely made with a far more crunchy mentality behind them, a big part of them was generally dungeon crawl style gameplay, and everything you do being costly. A lot of the mentality of OSR style campaign design existed though, solving things creatively using the tools provided was a massive part of dnd3.5e and pf1e, that's what their massive catalogue of player options enabled, giving more and more varied options you can choose to keep available, with random, niche abilities you can make work in a wider array of cases through a combination of the features you picked and creative solutions, where as things like the OSR style magic items thing is just taking the ability to choose that niche thing away from players. it's not old school in any sense except that the GM is the one with the most control, which was very clearly a notable part of gary gygax's mentality behind gming, where as a lot of people nowadays are more in the mentality of the GM basically working for the players, hence why things like payed GMing is mostly a new invention. My personal favorite system is pf1e, so I might be biased in some of this, but another of my favorites is Scions 2e, a system where a pretty significant chunk of the rules are pretty open ended, but part of why this works in my mind is the fact it has a pretty stable core to work off of, and even with those more open ended stuff, it gives some pretty decent guidelines for how to handle them, it makes it so everyone has a basic level of shared expectations, because the system itself shares what the expectations that went into those rules to begin with were, and because within the context of that system. When you understand something, you can do a lot more with it than when you're just told to figure out something to use it for
I think it definitely depends on the group. I’ve DMed the same group in 5E for 3 years and OSR has huge appeal to me because my players definitely just give up if the answer isn’t concretely in front of them. For example, there was a city of goblins in different gangs. Each gang marked by simply wearing colored arm bands. The players disguised as goblins (they got the idea from an NPC) wore green arm bands. They wanted to go to a location in blue band territory. When the blue bands stopped them and said they couldn’t go further, they gave up and got frustrated, saying they didn’t see what they were “supposed” to do.
Yeah same. In most cases I've already read the original blog posts but the recap and discussion from you is fun, and your curation is on point (you pick good posts!) Keep 'em comin'!
Rulings are always going to be necessary. The primary strength of ttrpgs is the ability for a human GM to respond and improvise to actions taken. However, I find that a lot of the time rulings can become inconsistent or have knock-on effects due to being essentially slapdash rules. Put another way, rules are just rulings made in advance with more thought put into them. Rulings buy flexibility at the cost of GM responsibility. Rules ease GM responsibility at the cost of rigidity. The more of a game-designer a GM is, the more responsibility they can take without causing problems in the game itself.
When I think of “Rulings, not Rules” in the context of adding to the adventure, I am immediately hit with the feeling of making a roll, rolling low resulting in a failure, and being left feeling unfulfilled. When being the DM, if a player tries to (for example) pick a lock, and despite having proficiency and high stats, still rolls low, it can be souring to just move on. I’ll often try to add something there to explain why an otherwise talented lockpick failed what should have been quick and easy. Perhaps the lock is overly complex, which begs the question “why?”. This adds to the adventure, by complimenting the character’s skill, but also providing a potential hook to further drive the plot. What’s behind the lock? I can put anything I want there, and if that’s the direction the party takes, then I successfully turned a failed roll into a full quest.
Yeah, can definitely be utilised this way and help with more emergent stuff but could also be a nuisance if it is not in the service of the story/adventure or the goals of the players/DM for the game imo.
If the consequence of failure is just "the adventure stops" that's a poorly designed test. A character with high enough proficiency in lockpicking should always be able to roll a lock, but the roll can decide several things: maybe it takes a long time and some other time sensitive task has to be sacrificed. maybe it makes a loud noise and alerts a guard. maybe their thieves tools break. Maybe the lock is damaged so at a glance someone will be able to tell it was picked. There are lots of results to a "failed" check than just "you can't do it."
I actually think the concept of old school vs. new school just comes down to "are you more interested in narrative logic, or are you more interested in mechanical logic." By Narrative logic, I mean (spoiler) when The Bride gets buried alive in Kill Bill Vol. 2, new school games are interested in the player saying "well, I'm still playing, so how do I get out of here?" and then the GM saying "Well did you learn anything in your training that could help?" and then you get this whole flashback montage style system. In mechanical logic, an old school GM and an Old School game will say "you're buried alive, what do you do?" and the olds chool approach is that you would expect them to have read the WikiHow on escaping from being buried alive or have already arranged for someone to find you and have a way to help you, you're just gonna die down there. I love all the design logic around what you're saying, but I feel like ultimately that's what we're taklking about: the difference betewen "being good" at the game being an expression of logic and an expression of storytelling. New school leans more toward the latter. Old school more toward the former.
That's the real kicker for me. In OSR style gaming, your character's ability to solve problems is explicitly tied to you, the player's, ability to visualize problems from storyteller descriptions and solve them logically in real time. It's the same issue with players who maybe aren't the most charismatic or charming playing persuasive characters; if your character's ability to do something is tied to *your* ability to do something, then you're ultimately just restricted by your own intelligence or personality, which can feel pretty shit. Now, when I fail to adequately solve a problem in-game, it's not that perhaps my character was ill-equipped to handle that particular challenge, now it's a negative reflection of me, the player. Talk about a buzzkill.
I think my favourite of these types of puzzles I have created is also one of the simplest. A locked door with a pit in front of it where the door was flush with the wall of the pit (no overhang).
The idea of OSR solutions can be extended to the character classes of AD&D. The AD&D illusionist, the AD&D druid, the AD&D monk, all excel at approaching problems side-on rather than from the front. This style of play can cause friction with a rigidly structured rule set. This might explain why the classes were effectively abandoned or re written from the ground up in later editions.
what are you on about? AD&D is a super rigid system, and monks are pretty straightforward in what they do, they kill things quick. D&D basic was a more rules-light and simple system, but AD&D is where a lot of the rigid rules ideas from D&D 3.5e came from, and the dnd3.5e monk greatly resembles its AD&D counterpart, but actually is less limited in what it is capable of than it originally was, being where that more side-on approach was greatly expanded on
Excellent content! I love how you pick and present the OSR blog posts. I am struggling to get all 4 game elements going at the table. Prompting players is essential. The simple "What do you do?" can fall flat, if the flow of information has faltered.
That's certainly one way of thinking. I know I have a player who cannot make a 'creative' choices and really wants rules laid out for acceptable actions. For that player, 'You can do anything' turns into 'You can't do anything'. Unfortunately, that player is at an OSR table and everyone else really prefers the 'rulings not rules' mentality.
Yeah, this is my take as well. I found that 3.x era D&D was liberating _because_ of the rules present, and they didn't get in the way of 'rulings' when those were necessary. I _want_ to know what my character can do, and 'rulings not rules' has devolved into nonstop 'Mother May I?' situations. You need a good DM _that is trustworthy_ to make a more free-form game with 'rulings' work.
@@DrakeBarrowexactly, the more well defined the rules, the more likely expectations will be understood by everyone, even with strangers you're joining for the first time, it gives common ground and ensures that everyone knows what tools are available, allowing you to potentially apply those tools to problems in more creative ways
I commonly hear that it's the player's job to figure out how to solve the problem, but that never felt right to me as a DM because if I don't have a solution in mind, then that creates the possibility of no solution which I don't think is very fun. I prefer having a solution, but being open to the players trying something I didn't think of... this way, if the players are truly stumped, I can start dropping hints.
Solutions to that I feel is to have multiple paths in a dungeon/adventure, if one problem feels too utterly 'unsolvable' to players they can either try their chances with a different problem; or if it is REALLY unsolvable just treat it like a locked door and put some 'key' somewhere that will allow them to either solve or bypass it.
Generally I'd say that for most TTRPG problems I try to brainstorm 2-3 ways I would solve it with common PC resources and if I can think of a few solutions then it's good to go. Sometimes I'll include some very standard problems (e.g. pits, climbs, spikes, darts, etc...) without bothering to think of a specific solution, because there's so many ways to solve them that it's really unlikely a determined group will be stumped for too long. Other times I'll include something with just one solution (e.g. a magic portal that requires a specific ritual to open) but then I'll make sure that the solution can be learned via some other diegetic source and I generally try not to gate progression entirely behind this sort of thing.
it is the job of the players to find out THE Solution, it's the GMs job to ensure there is a solution and that the problem is something the players and the GM will want to see solved. Part of this is trying not to be confined to the idea that there is only 1 solution though, when you're at a magically locked door with a secret password needed to get past it, being able to dispell the magic is another option, being able to bypass the door entirely by climbing the wall of the building and going through a window, going through the sewers underneath and making a hole through the floor in a weak spot between the sewer and the building, if the door talks, you may be able to trick it into giving you the password, all of these could be options sometimes to the same problem, but things like the sewer thing can be realistically assumed if the building is in a city where a sewer system does exist, being open to improvise is a big part of this
Only the other night I was thinking about how important it is to trust your players and even to side with the players against the dungeon. It’s the dungeon that should provide the challenges NOT the DM.
My favorite trap is my annual "Shocker Lizard" trap. The original trap came from some old adventure from a while ago, where there was a room with a well of healing water in the middle, overflowing with water and healing anyone who steps into it. Along the walls are clay jars which are held up on wooden planks. The planks are trapped, and when the trap is triggered the jugs will fall into the water. The trick is that the jugs are full of shocker lizards, turning a healing font of water into a deadly trap. Every year I re-arrange the facets of the trap. Sometimes the lizards are in the water, and must be placed in the jugs. One year the well summoned infinite shocker lizards, and the jugs contained water. Once I switched it so the lizards were actually healing lizards, and the well was heated, with an electric coil on the bottom, so when filled with water it would shock players. Few referees use re-occuring traps, but I think they're great. They make it so you have to think up less traps over an adventure, and everyone can have fun figuring out how the aspects of a trap have changed, which encourages a new way to solve the problem.
There is a quote from a prominent figure in this that also needs to be considered. “The secret we should never let game masters know is that they don’t need any rules.” Gary Gygax That speaks volumes in the rulings not rules theory imo.
@@jadoaesra3011 I’ve been GMing since 1977 as a forever GM. I haven’t played as a player character since the early 1980s. I know that quote quite well and adopt the philosophy it speaks to. 💪 I must be doing something right to have that history. 👍
@@akimdemianenco it’s a well known quote of Gary Gygax. If you want to know more, Google is your friend. Search Gary Gygax quotes and you’ll discover all about this one and many more.
I love all Questing Beast videos! Knave's 100 utility spells are well worth the price of admission. Put them in all your games. Let the characters find a wondrous item (ring, amulet, scroll, whatever) that allows them to cast a single, random spell every day.
The second document you refered to makes an EXCELLENT point that I don't see expanded upon often; adventures need to be written in a way that accomodates "rulings not rules". And we all know how WotC writes its adventures for 5e...
Funny. I remember hearing Matt Colville, who I think it's fair to say is not especially OSR, talk some time ago now about how he prefers to develop challenges without specific solutions in mind for this very reason of it promoting better creativity. Fun to see different creators using different tools converging on similar solutions.
This is a good example of how "Old School" and "New School" don't necessarily need to be either/or. You can mix the two styles if you're so inclined, to produce a game you (and your table, one hopes) will enjoy. You don't need to appease the whole internet, only your table.
The difference is Matt is much more likely to say it's the DM's job to then "solve their solution", is willing to move a secret door to make it accessible to the players if they get backed into a corner, etc.
I just had this conversation with my group. I don’t know or have a specific solution in mind for every problem / puzzle / encounter like it’s a video game or Choose Your Own Adventure. I’ve been playing with these guys for 35yrs and they never grasped that until now
Well, coming up with creative approaches to non-obvious problems is the bread and butter in games like Shadowrun and Vampire: the Masquerade, which are pretty damn far from OSR, so it's not necessary for it.
I generally agree with the “OSR” approach to problems. That said, myself and many of my friends have greatly enjoyed 3.5 and Pathfinder one, especially when it came to character building benefitting from a kind of creeping system mastery. In my experience, some of our best times, role-playing benefited simultaneously from mechanics on our sheets and creative problem-solving. I’m not suggesting our experience is somehow “one size fits all”. But I do think crafting problems like this benefit every game system, crunchy or otherwise.
Yes, exactly, a system with hard rules enables more creative solutions to problems, rather than hinders them, like, yes, sometimes you can just brute force it, but that ability to know what you are capable of means you know that if you do this in this scenerio, this result will happen, and that result happening in this scenerio, will achieve our goals, even if the tool isn't normally used to achieve that goal, it's basic immersive sim video game logic
I love all Questing Beast videos When I first got into D&D in the 80’s, my group made up magical items. Some of our favorites were a gem of teleportation, a gem of disintegration, magical weapons that didn’t have a bonus to hit but caused 1d20 damage, a ring of polymorph, and gauntlets that allowed the wearer to shoot darts and fly. We also made up cursed magic items like a cloak of disintegration but the villain wore a shell-like breastplate that prevented instant death. My character wasn’t so lucky when he tried the cloak on without the breastplate…
The argument that just because something is not in the rules means you can't do it doesn't hold water. If it is not covered, then that topic is ripe for a DM ruling. Also, Matt Finch is not saying you should not use common sense in making your rulings.
I think the intent of that statement was more along the lines that systems that lean toward "rules for most the things" vs "rules for very few things" can encourage a certain style of play wherein things are run almost procedurally to the point that anything not spelled out in the rules is considered out-of-bounds. Or, put another way, OSR kind of embraces the idea of "things outside the system _are_ inside the system" (hows that for irony?), whereas very rules-heavy games may tend more towards "things _not_ inside the system, are outside the system." Though by no means is this a mutually exclusive distinction.
I always strive to give my players tricky challenges without a specific solution, and one tool they've gotten a lot of use out of has been an item that's functionally a portal gun, from the game Portal. I admit a portal gun is not quite an OSR style tool the way you described, since it's so clearly powerful and useful in a ton of different situations, but it fits the tone of my game and I've had a lot of fun seeing the wacky and creative things my players have gotten up to with it. I think even in high-power, high-magic games like mine, players really benefit from having open-ended tools they can use to leverage their creativity.
I think every OSR game Master should watch this and read that article. A lack of understanding of these principles is why I end up turning away quickly from most OSR actual plays and content creators.
This is so wonderful. We played dnd like that, 100 years ago, because we didn't know any better. It was so exciting, creative and strangely... intimate? I mean you were really close with the world, experiencing it via senses of the character, experimenting with everything. Best way to play.
I think a great example of an "OSR Problem" and an "OSR Solution" is actually in the D&D movie. Spoilers: ... ... ... They need to get inside the safe that has a magical seal on it that absolutely nothing can break whatsoever once it is closed, not even magic! Solution: They put a passwall from a magical Hither-to-Thither staff (a portal gun basically) on the back of a portrait of Volo, replace the painting and then when the painting is in place, they open up the other side of the passwall to get through. Some shenanigans occurs but, ultimately, it was a very creative problem and creative solution that felt extremely *D&D* when watching it.
I totally forgot about d100 tables from Goblin Punch! Those are amazing, thank you for the reminder. As always, such an interesting and cool video, thanks Ben!
I've never really run an OSR style game, but from time to time my players will come up with a solution to a puzzle that wasn't the one (or any of the ones, for puzzles with multiple solutions) I intended, but it's clever and they clearly put some thought into it. I always try to find a way to make those solutions work. A player who comes up with crazy yet oddly compelling puzzle solutions is one who's engaged, and that's something to encourage.
I love all questing beast videos! the punch is great too! hats off to you, sir, for so consistently spreading the joy w/ munchkins too. nothing like watching kids light up in imaginative play and not have their noses stuck in a screen. also a fan of your games, too! just wish i could get more folks to at least try something other than The Game That Shall Not Be Named. another great post Ben!
As always, love the Questing Beast channel advice. 👍👍👍👍😎😎😎😎 I think this shows that even in OSR games, everyone is working together to create a great gaming experience. 😃😃😃😃
I love OSE now that I'm an experienced DM, however one of the reasons I was drawn to D&D 3e in my 20's was because of their rules. The rules protected the player from bad DM's. At the time we had played with many bad DM's in our teens - the kind who treated the players like prisoners in their fantasy funhouse. They would make up rules whenever they wanted, made changes to our characters without our permission, created constantly unbalanced encounters, were biased in their treatment of certain players, etc. With D&D we had rules we could depend on, such as Challenge Ratings, Loot tables, XP per monster, leveling abilities, etc, so it was something we could point at when the DM tried to mess with us and we could say "That's not what the rules say". After all these decades I now feel very differently about it, but just wanted to share my experience and explain why some players may not love the systems which are open to interpretation and allow DM's more influence over the balance of the game.
A brick/stone in the bottom of a long unused fireplace, that's feels slightly warmer than the surrounding bricks/stone. I watched a Paladin carry such a thing over two yeas of play.
I love these videos. My only complaint is they weren't around when I was fumbling around for a GM style after the DM Guide left me with more questions than answers.😂.
I don't always love OSR style play, as I think it often falls into traps of being a little bit directionless, and often slowly paced, buuut I ALWAYS love OSR style problems and OSR style tools- those are so much fun!
My slightly different formulation of what makes a good magic item or spell is: • It shouldn’t directly give a numerical bonus (or penalty) [in play, the GM might rule that a particular use results in a bonus to a roll or taking less damage or whatever, but it shouldn’t just be “+2 to stealth”] • it should do or enable something that can’t be done without magic. Much like the prohibition on direct numerical bonuses, I don’t want a magic item to substitute for experience or experience levels. A 3rd-level thief with a magic item shouldn’t be the equivalent of a seventh level thief- the seventh level thief should still be better at thieving; the magic items should let the third level thief do things that neither of them could do without the Magic item. • be creative. Be weird. Come up with something specific and narrow in scope.
2:53 if it's something that'd be easy, then that is a situational modifier Beyond that, an in-depth system theoretically can be created where it accurately represents the scenerios you want in a satisfying way to begin with, like the greatly refined version of dnd3.5e known as pathfinder1e, where generally speaking, anything basic anyone can do, anyone can do, but there's major benefits when you are actually trained for it, and when you realistically can't do it, you realistically can't do it, with optional rules to adjust some of this to preference. I love looking at pf1e as something akin to an immersive sim style game, the solutions to problems are still using the tools available, but you can very well create a problem without creating the solution, but between all the tools available, you very well can find a solution, and I find this far more satisfying than some random nonsense I rarely will have use for, that I was just given, if I wand something highly niche, I'll take something highly niche, I like my highly niche stuff but not at the cost of all existing understanding being made obsolete because a new set of rules are being introduced all the time, which makes that existing understanding obsolete, in my mind. Randomness does not equal creative, randomness can be used as a source of creativity, but some level of foundation is needed for that
I really like this type of video and the last couple as well. They are chock full of great and quick inspiration or just a simple perspective shift that can make all of the difference in the world.
My favourite RPG at the moment is Dungeon World which is HEAVY on players figuring stuff out - with very scant character sheets. I found my D&D players struggled, looking at their character sheets and thinking "this is all I can do...", instead of just playing 'in the world'. My players, as long as I've DM'ed, also know..I'll gladly put them into a tough situation or problem without having a solution to it in mind. Now, I won't just kill them off for fun, and if they put a good try forward, I'm lenient on the problem solving...but watching them solve a thing which happened organically via the story is very fun.
Thanks for the fantastic insights on the OSR's 'rulings, not rules' philosophy. I wholeheartedly agree that the attempt by modern games to codify every conceivable action into a rule seems counterproductive in a medium that thrives on the boundless nature of human imagination. Your discussion highlights a crucial point: the importance of encouraging creativity among players and the role of GMs in fostering and rewarding this creativity, rather than boxing it into predefined rules. This approach not only empowers players but also enriches the game, making each session unique and memorable. After all, TTRPGs are a journey of the mind, and like any skill, our ability to navigate and flourish within these imaginative realms improves with practice. The game evolves as we do, getting richer and more engaging the more we play and grow. Your video is a reminder of the magic that happens when we let rulings guide us, not rules. Thanks again for such a thought-provoking piece.
That article is in Knock 1, it's a good read and really helped me improve my gaming back when I ran 5E. Your articles were also really interesting, Ben!
sounds like they want me to use my inventory not my spells in creative ways. Which given how spells work in D&D can be hard to do with spells. But I would see my self constantly going over my inventory and think of what my sheet lets me do, just not the spell part.
