The *Rule* is, there IS NO rule...

[captaincrumbcake]

It is easy to, now days, sift through and organize all the written available rules into one's own, coherent, preference. It certainly should make things easier for the Ref to run games and campaigns with everything buttoned down and sewed up. But, should that be the case? Should everything be spelled out to the extent that everyone sitting at the table knows the full scope and application of everything involved with participating in an adventure? 1.

In the beginning some guys (Arneson, Gygax, etc.) started writing down procedures of what they felt was required to play their game. As Michael Mornard has expressed from time to time, they made up stuff they thought would be fun (paraphrasing). What we see in the original publication of these procedures--and what the author/s imply themselves is--a system open to trimming to be added by the referee and his or her players (Vol.3, AFTERWARD, p.36). And, wherein, the authority to make the whole thing as the referee "would like it to be.." officially given.  2.

Vol.1 MEN & MAGIC, p.10 Changing Character Class What does this mean (to you)? I read it very simply as: a fighting man could change class to a cleric or magic-user; or a cleric to a fighting man; or a magic-user to a fighting man. It doesn't say that doing so benefits the character in the same way that an elf is a combination F/MU... Then again, it doesn't say that it doesn't! This, imo, is one of those times that best illustrate where the referee is granted full authority to make his own ruling as to how he "would like it to be.." Of course, rules sets have appeared since 1974 that have attempted to codify and tighten rules according to the preference of the one writing them. But, you don't have to surrender your authority to someone else's interpretation or preference. Cherry-picking published sources (post 1974) is totally an option ;  you may accept to do so, or not. One could debate that cherry-picking the rules of the original 1974 source is an option also. 3.

So what has the thread title got to do with the comments above? Just this,

Vol.1 MEN & MAGIC, p.4-- "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign." Ergo, I submit, that a House Rule is as official as anything published in the original 1974 rules set, by the authority given to create such, found within the original source. Now, to many (like Michael, Rob, etc.) this is probably going to be/sound like a no-brainer...and i expect to see things like 'no Shoot, sherlock!' and so on as responses. But for those not raised within the time of the original game and having little to no experience participating in such a campaign, or refereeing one, I felt it might be nice to let them (you) know that-- Yes! You can!  4.

Now, go have some fun.

[tetramorph]

"The rule is, there is NO RULE."

Yes. Rulings not rules. This is why we play original edition.

[hengest]

Awesome post. Get a group of new folks together and just play. DM holds the sheets, even? Sounds like a good time.

[Mighty Darci]

captaincrumbcake, I think this is a great post and I don't know if robkuntz, will agree, but I think this covers pretty much what he has been saying, although I think he takes it much further along that road. 

[Deleted]

Though you have the right spirit I don't quite agree with the title. I would phrase it as

"The ruling is the rule."

[captaincrumbcake]

Mar 11, 2017 13:52:34 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Though you have the right spirit I don't quite agree with the title. I would phrase it as

"The ruling is the rule."

You have the eye of an editor, Gronan*. And a good one. I tend to write from the hip, as you know. It's part of my charm. 







* Done

[Deleted]

I mention it because I've been thinking a LOT about this. It's a primary part of the Free Kriegsspiel Manifesto. I actually plan on spending about a page on the idea. Essentially, "it's not that the referee can 'override the rules;' rather, it is the notion that the rules originate with the referee and that written text has no authority. The referee has sole and exclusive authority, and text has none except that which the referee grants it."

By the way, on the board you can use "Gronan," that's the handle I use. Don't have to, but you can.

[captaincrumbcake]

Interesting.

So, could you elaborate on your position regarding the ref? Just for clarifiers, and newer members. Like, is the role of the ref a vs. the players kind of thing? Is it his (or her) job to defeat the players? Or reward them when he (or she) feels it justifiable? Both in terms of short and long term games/campaigns.

[Deleted]

Neither; it is the job of the referee to design the world, and then fairly adjudicate what happens as the players interact with the world.

Again, it goes back to 19th century Free Kriegsspiel; the umpire in the games was the sole and absolute authority, but on the other hand the original umpires, and the original players, were career military officers, so they had a common frame of reference in such things as "How many troops in a regiment of foot? How far do they march in an hour?" etc.

Similarly with using the technique in RPGs; the text of the rules CAN be the framing of the common reference, but it does not have to be.

[robkuntz]

Arneson's axiom applies at all times, as where you are at in conceptual realms is always a new starting point: "…I've never used any of the D&D rules because whatever version comes out, I've already added to it and gone on and done things different. If there's a good resemblance to those rules, I got my own. Most of the rules are only between my ears and they're constantly changing." Dave Arneson, GameSpy Interview, August 19, 2004