Back in the day...

[diaglo]

I ask again, why are you using a set of published rules at all if you want the DM to determine outcomes and make up rules on the fly by himself? It seems like an awful burden, especially when there are already rules systems out there to determine outcomes, systems that have been playtested and researched much more than any individual DM has time to handle by himself.

aside from conventions... all games are played with varying degrees of houserules.

the players and the referee still have to playtest the rules in their own campaigns. decide what works and what doesn't.

 

[WizarDru]

The DM isn't "making up the rules" but is making a judgment call, like a referee in football. This is something that still happens in 3e when the DM sets a DC.

I personally see a huge difference between OD&D's 'make it up as you go along' versus the contextual framework of 3/3.5e. The DCs in 3e are usually based on fairly straight-forward examples, with guidelines provided and reasonable expectation levels set. The problem with totally subjective 'on the fly' rulings is the tendency to self-contradict, project favoritism (whether intended or otherwise) and a possible lack of consistency. I saw this sort of thing constantly back under Basic and AD&D. The same DM might rule completely differently each time, and this might be based on personal mood, story goal he was trying to enforce, persuasive players and any number of proximate factors that had nothing to do with, in game. Does it still happen? Sure it does...but it's easier to spot within an existing framework, and I think it happens less often.

aside from conventions... all games are played with varying degrees of houserules.

I'd agree with that, assuming you include the word 'NONE' under the category of 'varying degrees'. Some people don't have house-rules.

 

[Arnwyn]

The problem with totally subjective 'on the fly' rulings is the tendency to self-contradict... and a possible lack of consistency.

These two things (which I consider to be the same issue) is what I find to be the most crippling problem with the lack of a firm ruleset.

 

[RFisher]

For myself, it's MUCH less an issue of wether I trust the DM than wether I think the DM has the knowledge and expertise necessary to determine an outcome, and the time and/or motivation to have thought out all ramifications of his decision. I am placing my trust in the people I buy the books from to have taken the time to think through the consequences of a set of rules. I am saving the DM the time of making rules up himself.

Well, that's probably a big factor in my gaming preferences. Too many times have I trusted the people I buy the books from to have taken the time to think through the consequences of a set of rules. Heck, these days, it seems real, effective playtesting (which is what I feel I'm most paying for when buying game--playtesting is more important than thinking, IMHO) seems almost nonexistant. (To be fair, D&D 3.0e was an exception.)

In any case, the game needs to be fun, not perfect. I find I have more fun since I stopped letting being perfect be one of the criteria for me having fun.

I ask again, why are you using a set of published rules at all if you want the DM to determine outcomes and make up rules on the fly by himself? It seems like an awful burden, especially when there are already rules systems out there to determine outcomes, systems that have been playtested and researched much more than any individual DM has time to handle by himself.

(1) As RA said, its often less making up rules out of whole cloth as much as making judgements.

It's a continuum, though. It ranges from completely free form (which my group did try in the late 1908s without published rules) through games like classic Traveller (1st 3 LBBs only) & Fudge through classic D&D through OAD&D to "nigh-on-rule-for-everything" like d20 & GURPS.

And those classifications are quite problematic. Some people play Fudge with almost no free form aspects. Some people take what they like from GURPS & play a pretty free form game with it.

(2) It's nice to have some common terminology & frames of reference.

(3) Sometimes I don't use published rules.

One problem I have with d20 & GURPS is that I don't play enough these days to master the rules. Even when I did, I probably forgot a bunch of stuff in actual practice. Sure, it's nice that there are rules to handle so many things, but it doesn't really make a difference if I don't know or remember them. This can be mitigated by taking advantage of the collective knowledge of the group, but when playing those systems, usually only 2 or 3 people in my groups have known the rules in any depth, and things still fall through the cracks. I've run campaigns in which I've made it clear that I intend to take the time to look up rules, but it still seems that I don't always realize when I should look up things, and rules somehow seem to be particularly hard to find when you need them.

And that's not considering the fact that a rule that is simple enough to be playable often gives more whacked results compared to a person's judgement call.

 

[WizarDru]

One problem I have with d20 & GURPS is that I don't play enough these days to master the rules. Even when I did, I probably forgot a bunch of stuff in actual practice. Sure, it's nice that there are rules to handle so many things, but it doesn't really make a difference if I don't know or remember them.

Had you tried using GURPS Lite? There's not a lot to remember there, and you can play a full game with them. Unlike D&D, where selling the core books is the model, GURPS is based around selling the supplements (or was, anyhow). Unlike d20, GURPS ejects whole sections of the rules without much consequence, if that's your thing.

And that's not considering the fact that a rule that is simple enough to be playable often gives more whacked results compared to a person's judgement call.

Well, that really depends on the rule and the person. I don't have a lot of first-hand knowledge of rapiers, plate mail or candle-making...but my players do, so I expect my rules system to help with that. When we played AD&D, we usually ignored all but the most gross violations of encumberance...why? Because it was too much work to track, and none of us really knew what reasonable carrying capacities were. We could have computed them, of course, but that too would have been work. I'm not sure when winds become so powerful as to be likely to knock me from my feet, how far a crossbow can shoot with any accuracy, the relative differences in damage between a crossbow bolt and a longsword, and so forth. The rules help me formulate some ideas about implementation. I still try to make an informed decision, but in the absence of expertise, the rules provide a framework to gauge my decision.

 

[RFisher]

Had you tried using GURPS Lite?

Oh, sure. Although the 3/e GURPS Lite oddly left out a few important things (feint) that could have easily made the cut. More typically I'd just run a light version of GURPS with the full Basic Set & my own ideas about what to ignore.

(Haven't had the time to really examine the 4/e GURPS Lite closely yet.)

But the point was more about running all-options-on GURPS.

I don't have a lot of first-hand knowledge of rapiers, plate mail or candle-making...but my players do, so I expect my rules system to help with that.

Well, I don't know about candle making, but I don't think I've seen any roleplaying game that had high versimilitude & playable rules for dealing with rapiers or plate mail.

If others in my group did have first hand knowledge with those things, I could really enjoy playing a free form game in which the referee leaned on those players' experience to help make rulings.

With candle making I would definately defer to a friend's first hand experience over any game's rules.