Anyone do this...Run it like it was old school

[GreyLord]

I wonder if I'm one of the few DM's who run games like I do when I come to ENWorld, and then I see others in real life who do the same thing and am assured that I am not the only one. Perhaps it's just the people I game with and hang out with, and we are the oddity. Of course we are a bunch of old geezers, maybe that has something to do with it, but I can't help but wonder at some of the statements on ENWorld.

In 3.X games, and 4e, rule 0 rules. In older editions, the rules were pretty easy to remember, and if something unexpected came up, we were expected to rule what happened on the spot. Normally since I don't let the players even know what they are up against stat wise, unless it's been stated in a book (like the Monster Manual) they don't know the better anyways.

I do that in 3.X and 4e edition too. Rather than waste time looking up a rule, I'll play something off the cuff. Don't know if A whale trying to gulp you down and the player trying to hold the mouth open takes a grapple check, and Fortitude Check, or both, or maybe something else, come up with a quick solution on the spot and play it out. They know they are rolling a D20, they can guess at what for.

I've actually never had many players have any problems with this as long as the game keeps moving at a good pace and the adventure is rolling smoothly.

I keep on seeing people talk about constantly referring to looking up rules in the middle of the game and how much it slows the game down. I can see that, but if we have a really hardcore rules lawyer who insists on doing that constantly, I typically will talk to them and then if they keep interfering with the flow, ban them. Munchkins are not normally a problem, we do keep with certain key rules (certain books are banned, core races only unless a VERY GOOD exception is given, MC is normally preplanned and limited to two classes, or three if one is a prestige class...etc), which makes them still able to be Munchkin, but some of the more outrageous abuses (especially those inclusive of NPC classes or non-core races being impossible to do) are not even considered.

Are there any others who roll this way with their DM'ing?

Or do you find this method an abomination?

 

[Agamon]

If a rule is quick and easy to find, I'll let the player look it up while we move on, or I'll look it up quickly myself if what happens next is important to what he's doing. Consistancy is nice.

However, if I'm not sure where to find something or if it even exists, I have no problem coming up with something off the cuff. I'll then make a note to look it up later or at least what I did so when it comes up again, it remains consistant.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

The first half of your post is very similar to my DMing style, and the style of almost every game I've played in across several editions, including 4e.

As a DM, logical conclusions and the rules thereof are "close enough" or sometimes even better than the official rules, and in most cases, I'm the most knowledgeable on the rules in my group, so often the group will simply believe me. If something doesn't make sense, there might be some questions, but the authority of the DM is rarely if ever questioned (usually only if something kills a character.)

But, the second half of the OP which stipulates the different methods you use to restrict your games seems almost impossible in most of the games I play in. Everybody I know uses the 4e character builder for 4e games, which is extremely difficult to ban certain things. I can understand races, but the thousands of feats and powers are very difficult to winnow down.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One of the advantages the newer game systems have: rules that follow a baseline, making it easier to remember the important stuff. In 3.x, Fireball has range long, save DC 13 + Int, Reflex save half. Hold Monster has range medium, save DC 15 + Int, Will save every round to negate. You don't need to look that up in the PH, and a player who uses those things should have memorize those anyway. I can calculate an item-less paladin's saving throws, at any level, in less than a minute, instead of looking at a five columned chart that is difficult to memorize.

One of the advantages older game systems had: fewer rules. You had to memorize more of them (in terms of percentage rules memorized), but there was far less rules bloat (at least if you avoided splats, where newer editions have that exact same issue).

I wouldn't want to go "old school" with "old school" rules. I hear Castles & Crusades has established a reasonable mid-line between "fewer old simple rules" and "new streamlined rules".

I don't know if it's "munchkins" who slow the game down though. People who play wizards that use complicated spells (or worse, polymorph or summoning) are going to slow down the game too. Along with new players who haven't got a grasp of the rules yet.

 

[GreyLord]

The first half of your post is very similar to my DMing style, and the style of almost every game I've played in across several editions, including 4e.

As a DM, logical conclusions and the rules thereof are "close enough" or sometimes even better than the official rules, and in most cases, I'm the most knowledgeable on the rules in my group, so often the group will simply believe me. If something doesn't make sense, there might be some questions, but the authority of the DM is rarely if ever questioned (usually only if something kills a character.)

But, the second half of the OP which stipulates the different methods you use to restrict your games seems almost impossible in most of the games I play in. Everybody I know uses the 4e character builder for 4e games, which is extremely difficult to ban certain things. I can understand races, but the thousands of feats and powers are very difficult to winnow down.

Overall, except for going berserk with Monster races, I'm allow MUCH more than I did in 3e (basically I allow just about anything in 4e, Non-Essentials, Essentials, etc. I normally don't have to worry about some major catastrophe of munchkinistic Powergaming coming to the table like I did with one specific previous edition...which I also play, but where MUCH of my banning of certain books and materials come to play. In 4e, just about everything is already Core! Overall it leaves the DM with less heartache as well).

I'm NOT saying the above to tarnish anything about 3.X, currently playing more 3.X then 4e. I'm just saying in my DMing, I am much more relaxed about allowing materials. I'll allow 3rd party books for 4e as in Blackmoor material and even stuff by Ari if they want to have characters from those books (they have to do those by hand though, they aren't in the Character builder).

In 4e Skill challenges and skill tests are ALL done off MY feeling of how hard or easy a task is, and the numbers aren't necessarily exactly what the book says they should be. In addition, other items sometimes are tossed in by me (I actually do attribute tests sometimes for straight up tests of things like Strength, etc).

 

[Treebore]

When you have a GM who is "good", knows how to run a game, to be fair, and most of all to run it "fun", rule 0 is the only way to go. All else are only training wheels until the GM gets "good" enough to take the training wheels off.

 

[Is_907]

I never waste time looking up a rule at the table. Wastes my precious time.
When I was younger? Sure, let the lawyers look up the rules. I work 60 hours a week, so gaming time is precious.

If it makes sense, that's how we rule the question.

As a GM, your/my job is to make rules invisible, leaving only adventure and fun for the players.

 

[Wycen]

I'm of mixed opinion on this. See, I put the time and energy into learning the rules, so why not use them? But, on the other hand, it can be awkward when you are always the one pointing out misinterpretation of the rules. If it worked in the players favor most of the time I suspect people would be ok, but with one group I play with should really be playing a rules-light game. Then there is the example of the players essentially negotiating with the DM. That doesn't feel old school, but if the DM is going along with it, what does a player do?

We recently argued about how to best use a Web spell to stop and then burn a group of gnolls and the whole time I was thinking "why don't you open the book and read the spell" since that tends to answer the questions needed to resolve the issue, like range and area of effect.

But then we have another situation where I don't want to step on the DM's toes. As a result of the Web spell the DM used the spell Plane Shift as if it were teleport. Granted the monster description could have been altered for this adventure, it was not a home brew. Could he have invoked Rule 0? Yes, but ultimately I believed it was not worth the effort to delay the game.

 

[Hussar]

I'll tend to go with "It's good enough for now" either as a player or a DM.

OTOH, we have a rules guru in the group, so she looks up rules for other people. And, to be fair, since we're playing on Maptools with a framework, most of the rules are actually included right there in front of you. Need to know exactly what some condition means? Well, the rules are one click away.

If I was going back to tabletop, I'd probably be a lot more fast and loose with the rules.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I play differently, depending on the group that I'm playing with.

My tuesday morning group has short-ish sessions, so we play fast and loose with the rules, going with what the GM says or what feels right. Sometimes we bother to look it up later.

My every-other saturday group has long-ish sessions, so we don't feel the need to rush into anything. We're just as likely to spend an hour talking about rules and different interpretations of them as we are to spend an hour talking to an NPC (or beating up said NPC).

Both groups are pretty open to player-rules abuse and powergaming combinations. If the player wants to be able to throw ten crits in a row, why should anyone stop him?