Gelatinous Icosahedron

 We use the word "game" in distinct and mutually exclusive ways, and then get confused when we try to equivocate between the two. There are games in the sense of free-form make-believe, such as when children play Cops and Robbers or House, or adults engage in theatrical or comedic improvisation. Then there are games of objective rules, such as chess, checkers, Monopoly, and card games.  D&D, as originally created and played, is a game of objectivity. It has slowly evolved away from those roots. Many of the old forms have been intentionally preserved, but they are vestigial, and as such, useless and pointless to the way the game is played in its modern incarnations.  D&D is known for its mathematical rules -- perhaps digital is even nearer the mark. Target numbers and modifiers are precisely defined, and they're intended to be used that way. There are no "fudge factors" and indeed, that would defeat the entire purpose of the digital precision. If these n...

 Combat offense in D&D is modeled with attack rolls, using d20, modified by class and level plus ability score modifiers or by creature Hit Dice, in either case representing some combination of skill and physical power, and by a damage roll, generally representing the amount of force brought to bear on a successful attack. It can be a wonky system, and sometimes counter to our intuitions of how combat and bodily injury actually work, but it serves its purpose well enough in the game. Defense in D&D combat can be even wonkier and less intuitively satisfying. Like offense, it's broken down into two primary components, Armor Class and hit points. Both, conceptually, serve the same broad function, which is to represent the avoidance or reduction in severity of bodily injury, but they do so in ways which are mathematically distinct and very different intuitively.  Armor Class is the more intuitively comprehensible of the two, though it itself represents two semi-distinct co...

 This post is the first in a series loosely conceived as My Old School Manifesto, where I look at ideas and principles which, to me, are important to the concept of "old school" gaming. "Rulings not rules" is one of the most oft-repeated mantras of the OSR and old school gaming generally, but in my estimation, it misses the mark. Taken literally, it implies no rules are necessary at all; that a DM has only to make rulings, and I highly doubt anyone takes it that far. In spirit it means that you don't need codified rules for every situation and trying to attain that standard is a quixotic endeavor at best. It would perhaps be more accurate, though less catchy, to encapsulate the intended spirit in the phrase "Rulings informed by rules" or "Rules sufficient to provide benchmarks for rulings." What I want in an old school or old school-esque game is a body of broadly applicable rules for the types of situations most commonly faced in the game. T...