Well, I don't know about that. I have run an OD&D campaign for almost 7 years, as well as Classic Traveller and GURPS at conventions, and I played in various other systems, old and new. I find that carefully applying rules as written has led to the best results for me. If you invite me to a game of Magic the Gathering, but we're leaving out half of the rules and "interpreting" the rest, are we even playing MtG? Can I trust this is the game I signed up for? Rather invite me to an evening of shared story telling. I'm sure that'd be fun too!

Oftentimes, especially with older rules sets, it can be hard to guess what a particular rule might do, but it usually comes together when applied consistently at the table and as far as the classic D&D's are concerned especially so in the long form, multi-faction campaign game. Consistency is probably the key here.

I know I have been disappointed as a player when I noticed rules being disregarded, when they could have been applied easily and it would have made sense to apply them. And I don't mean this in a rules lawyery way. When I know the GM is making a conscious choice - or ruling - in a way that's consistent and supporting the diegetic reality, I'm all fine with it. That's the GM's job. But when e.g movement allowance or shall we say fictional positioning doesn't even have a meaning, what am I here for? That's breaking immersion, and ultimately taking away degrees of freedom. Aren't those games about choice and player decisions?

Pulling off an amazing feat because we all thought it's a fun idea is one thing (and not to bad a one really), but pulling it off within the bounds and constraints of the rules, that's a game for me, and quite a story to tell.

Trust is also an issue, when it comes to my own GMing. I'm tired of rules futzing. I want my rules system to work out of the box, so I don't have to question everything when I try to apply the tules. That's why I'm so fond of GURPS - it eases my mind, I know I can trust it. What Gygax was writing in parts of the DMG might have been an effort to add consistency and trustworthiness to the hot mess that OD&D had become at that time. I think he succeeded for the most part, but failed here and there.

So yeah, consistency, trust, maximum degrees of freedom within a dependable framework of boundaries.

Alright, I could go on, sorry didn't mean to rant. And I don't mind if I'm missing the point here. Happily so I guess, cheers 🍻

CC: @[email protected]