> A common idea in the OSR is rulings over rules, but the burden on GMs this creates is considerable, and I see no reason to have a ruleset that avoids codifying such common scenarios; leave rulings to the more abstract and one-off areas, rather than something that’s going to come up quite regularly.
With more in "What Makes a Task" in the player's manual on p19
> The default assumption is that players must overcome a challenge by describing what their characters do to meet it. This need not be an exhaustive or even heavily detailed narration. In fact, it’s usually better if it’s not. All you need is a broad statement of what the character hopes to accomplish, and any interesting ideas that might make it easier than normal—this is where player skill comes in.
> The GM might decide that the right description is enough by itself to resolve the situation. If not, a specific character ability might be relevant instead.
> Failing any of that, the Task system is used. The idea is that you roll to resolve situations with interesting stakes that would a) be too tedious / difficult to describe, or b) involve a strong element of chance.
Whenever I go to read a new fantasy system, I check to see how it handles falling, jumping, climbing, sneaking, backstabbing, lockpicking, swimming, and excavating (there might be a few more that I'm forgetting).
Those are, in my experience, foundational adventuring situations that happen over and over and are difficult to work out through conversation. If the system doesn't have guidance for those, I see it as a red flag that the designer's table either isn't actually dungeon delving (like the designer isn't actually playing or the players don't frequently think laterally) or that the game isn't built to support the GM giving the players freedom (ie, it's more narrative or rail-roady).
To me, the whole thing is an interconnected system. If you're making ad-hoc rulings about how jumping works, it makes it harder as a player to make proper decisions everywhere else (like which stats to prioritize at character creation) and harder for adventure module authors to create meaningful challenges. 10ft-wide pit traps become way less interesting if the GM ad-hoc rules that everyone can make 10ft leaps.
Well said!
I think one of my favorite summaries comes from Simulacrum (https://osrsimulacrum.blogspot.com/2021/06/simulacrum-beta-release.html), designer notes p11-12
> A common idea in the OSR is rulings over rules, but the burden on GMs this creates is considerable, and I see no reason to have a ruleset that avoids codifying such common scenarios; leave rulings to the more abstract and one-off areas, rather than something that’s going to come up quite regularly.
With more in "What Makes a Task" in the player's manual on p19
> The default assumption is that players must overcome a challenge by describing what their characters do to meet it. This need not be an exhaustive or even heavily detailed narration. In fact, it’s usually better if it’s not. All you need is a broad statement of what the character hopes to accomplish, and any interesting ideas that might make it easier than normal—this is where player skill comes in.
> The GM might decide that the right description is enough by itself to resolve the situation. If not, a specific character ability might be relevant instead.
> Failing any of that, the Task system is used. The idea is that you roll to resolve situations with interesting stakes that would a) be too tedious / difficult to describe, or b) involve a strong element of chance.
Whenever I go to read a new fantasy system, I check to see how it handles falling, jumping, climbing, sneaking, backstabbing, lockpicking, swimming, and excavating (there might be a few more that I'm forgetting).
Those are, in my experience, foundational adventuring situations that happen over and over and are difficult to work out through conversation. If the system doesn't have guidance for those, I see it as a red flag that the designer's table either isn't actually dungeon delving (like the designer isn't actually playing or the players don't frequently think laterally) or that the game isn't built to support the GM giving the players freedom (ie, it's more narrative or rail-roady).
To me, the whole thing is an interconnected system. If you're making ad-hoc rulings about how jumping works, it makes it harder as a player to make proper decisions everywhere else (like which stats to prioritize at character creation) and harder for adventure module authors to create meaningful challenges. 10ft-wide pit traps become way less interesting if the GM ad-hoc rules that everyone can make 10ft leaps.