Sell me on the refereeing practices of the OSR

[TJS]

I dn;t know r really car what this debate is about, but it loses the minutes it says: "how many encounters of a certain difficulty an adventure should have"

That phrase is the opposite of the thinking behind Old School play.

It's overly quantified, but if you're stocking a dungeon it's not a bad rule of thumb.

It's written in an overly prescriptive manner, and should probably be more specific - "This is a breakdown that might work well for a dungeon level, or a random table, but it can be altered based on circumstances or need, or ignored if the logic of the setting dicates otherwise".

I think the prescriptiveness is just based on a notion (which has some merit but I ultimately disagree with) that when teaching beginners you should give them definite information and not wishy washy caveats that just lead to confusion.

Edit: I think the assumption was probably that once people got the general idea they would ignore the prescriptive table (I can forgive them that, because ENworld didn't exist, so there was probably no way of knowing how incapable many gamers are of ignoring anything that looks like a prescription).

 

[Vile Traveller]

Wait a minute, are we talking about OSR refereeing styles, or actual refereeing styles from the olden times? Because those are entirely different kettles of fish.

 

[TristramEvans]

Wait a minute, are we talking about OSR refereeing styles, or actual refereeing styles from the olden times? Because those are entirely different kettles of fish.

Yes, exactly, the P is asking folks to sell him on OSR GMing styles. I think some good attempts at definitions have been thrown out so far, but no one has quite accomplished answering the OP's inquiry.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Yes, exactly, the P is asking folks to sell him on OSR GMing styles. I think some good attempts at definitions have been thrown out so far, but no one has quite accomplished answering the OP's inquiry.

The second post answered the OP's question, then there was a discussion about how OSR is not the same as old school play as the latter is almost infinitely varied, then there was a side argument about the differences between two old games I've never heard of (neither of which are OSR or old school). No-one's mentioned GURPS yet though.

 

[TristramEvans]

The second post answered the OP's question

well, half of it maybe.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I'll at least try to sell on the parts of Old School play that I really like:

Let dice land where they may: Part of the fun of RPGs to me, even when running the game, is that I don't know what will happen. True, I might know more than the players, because I know what all the NPCs are planning, I know the answer to the mystery they are trying to solve, etc. etc. etc. but I still want the mystery of what happens next. Pushing around and fudging dice rolls makes that mystery "less" for me.

Not every encounter is a fight: Everything is boring if you keep doing the same thing over and over again. To be honest, I would expand this more to "not every encounter has the same solution". Sometimes a fight, sometimes sneaking, sometimes bargaining, sometimes tricking, I want to see variety in how things play out. Every problem isn't a nail. Or a screw. Or a rivet. And it's always fun to see the players try to figure out what tool they'll use for each.

No Metaplot: Metaplots were miserable. Man the big moving metaplots of like old school WoD where the players can do nothing to affect it and it just happens are... they just aren't that fun. That isn't to say that things can't happen that the players didn't affect. I generally do have a rough outline of what happens in the game world over time... but that outline is based on a simple premise: This is what happens if the players don't interfere. Then after each game session, I look at that outline, and go "ok, well how did the players interfere with each of these things that was going on? How does that change it" then I do a few edits to the outline, move time forward, and maybe something happened that had nothing to do with the players. Somebody went missing. Or a battle was lost. Or maybe someone became the new mayor. Or maybe they stopped a thing that was going to happen that was on the outline, and now I have to figure out how that person/group/etc is going to react now. Again, it is all about the mystery of not knowing what will happen next.

 

[TJS]

OSR playing styles.

This is just my thoughts.

1) Just start playing. Don't spend an hour wondering what motivates your character or their back story. Have sword; will adventure. Work the rest out as you go.
2) You're a party not a set of individuals. What's your goal? The same as the parties. Work that out together.*
3) Resources are party resources. There's no sense envying the awesome spell the wizard has. He's on your side. Use that as a resource and remember you have it as an option.. Wizard, your spell is a party resource - don't waste it.
4) Please, for the love of god, give your PC some kind of basic personality. Just because it's not modern story driven gaming, doesn't mean you should treat your character like a board game token. At lease make an effort, try an accent or a funny voice or something and speak in the 1st person occasionally.
5) The only thing the GM wants to know about your character is what you do during the game.
6) If your thief tries to steal the party's gold I will kick you in the nuts.


*This could change eventually, but I feel an OSR game should definitely start out this way.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Most of what I see claimed as 'OSR play' is just a lot of (usually) good GM and player advice that is hardly unique to the OSR. So, just follow good gaming advice in general and don't sweat what is 'proper' or 'authentic' OSR play.

This is true of the two posts immediately above yours. But they are values that are embraced by the OSR though. They're necessary but not sufficient. They're good lessons that some people can learn from the OSR.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

4) Please, for the love of god, give your PC some kind of basic personality. Just because it's not modern story driven gaming, doesn't mean you should treat your character like a board game token. At lease make an effort, try an accent or a funny voice or something and speak in the 1st person occasionally.

Can I add the important footnote that sometimes it's fun to try different accents. Not all your dwarves need to speak in cod-Glaswegian.

 

[TJS]

This is true of the two posts immediately above yours. But they are values that are embraced by the OSR though. They're necessary but not sufficient. They're good lessons that some people can learn from the OSR.

I certainly don’t see the play advice I gave as universally good.

There are some games where more time on character creation is worthwhile and where PCs with disparate goals can drive a game in worthwhile directions.

Just not in exploration focused OSR play.

 

[Savage Schemer]

Can I add the important footnote that sometimes it's fun to try different accents. Not all your dwarves need to speak in cod-Glaswegian.

Heretic! Get a rope!

 

[TristramEvans]

Never having felt the draw of nostalgia for old-school D&D like it was in the old days, I have let the Old School Revival pass by unexamined, and am shamefully ignorant. I would of course not impose on AsenRG to do my research for me, but if there is someone to whom it would be not too much trouble to suggest where I might do well to start, I would be grateful if they did so.

Here is how I would sell it as someone who personally is not interested in D&D in ANY iteration, old or new:

You know how you sometimes watch a TV show or film and the characters do something or make certain choices, and you're like " thats not how I would have done that!" I feel like one of the great strengths of RPGs as a unique form of entertainment is that they provide the context for that very statement to be put to the test. The old Dragon's Lair cartoon, which would end every segment with a character in mortal peril and preface the break with the narrator saying "What would YOU do?" has for some reason, deep down, always been my guiding principle in RPGs.

The "OSR Playstyle", at least insofar as it intersects with my own, provides the best path to accomplishing that, by focusing on what I consider the unique experience that RPGs have to offer over any other form of gaming, and providing tools to support that while divorcing itself from some modern patterns of game design/approach that either hinder that goal or pursue contradictory experiences (collaborative storytelling, mechanical engagement etc)

It accomplishes this in several ways -

First off, the player is solely responsible for role-playing their character, in other words making decisions from an IC PoV.

This makes games very "pick up and play", as in the players don't need to know the specific "rules" of the game to start playing, lowering the main barrier to entry, especially for people who have never roleplayed before (this gives the referee access to a much wider potential pool of players, they can simply say to their friends "do you want to play this game?" and if they are concerned about not knowing how to play, the ref can simply be "all you have to do is tell me what your character is doing, you can pick up the rules as we go").

This also creates a much more immersive (used in the "eläytyminen"-sense of the word) gameplay experience for the players.

Secondly, the referee's primary goal is to present to the players a "living world". We can throw around terms like "consistent", "realistic", or even the dreaded "verisimilitude", but basically what this means is that the game operates from the starting point that the PCs are "real people" in a "real environment" where cause and effect is based on logic and common sense, rather than "Because Game" mechanics or "Narrative Contrivances". As such, any RPG system is simply one of numerous tools at the referees disposal in order to facilitate player choices and determining cause and effect relationships.

The first and primary tool is the one thing that cannot (at least not yet) be artificially recreated or matched by any mechanical system, computerized algorithm, or artificial intelligence - the human mind. The referee is able to evaluate any specific circumstance that occurs in the game, and make a ruling tailored to that exact situation. This is at the heart of the oft-repeated but often misunderstood "rulings not rules" motto, which should come with the understanding that the rules are not the game. You can change the rules, use different rules systems for different circumstances, even completely change the game you're playing at any point as it fits the circumstances of the campaign...

Players decide to travel on a ship between continents?
Use Bireme & Galley to handle ocean travel and ship to ship combat

The game culminates in an epic duel between one of the PCs and their arch nemesis?
Run the duel using En Garde!

Players are leading an army to war?
Break out Warhammer or Hail Caesar and run a wargame for one session

Players find themselves embroiled in a murder mystery?
Play it out using a How to Host a Murder box one evening

The PCs suddenly find themselves at the centre of a series of political machinations?
Resolve the conflict using Diplomacy

Suddenly you will find yourself freed from the restrictive notion that "we are playing [Named RPG System]", and the whole hobby is suddenly opened up to you - multiple hobbies, even. The Campaign is a living, breathing thing that supersedes any rules or system.

What this does mean is that the GM is often relied on to do a lot more improvisation in OSR style play than other playstyles. The bad news is this can be initially intimidating for some GMs. The good news is that the OSR provides mountains of support to assist with this.

Need to create an entire village or city on the fly and populate it with interesting NPCs?
The OSR has ways to do this with a few rolls of the dice.

Not sure what kind of country exists on the other side of that mountain range on the map, what the inhabitants are like, and even what their history is stretching back millennia?
The OSR has charts for this.

Any circumstance that could possibly arise in the game, the OSR has you covered with randomizers, lists, and guided content generation procedures. An because you are no longer restricted to one system, it does not matter in the least what system these were originally presented as a part of.

 

[Voros]

So to return to the OP by Agemegos, rather than Finch's deeply flawed and error-ridden OSR Primer I'd recommend the far superior, imaginative and most importantly inspiring Philotomy’s Musings by Jason Cone.

Philotomy's Musings

The Principia Apocrypha, although still displaying light touches of OSR chauvinism, also has a lot of good ideas in it.

Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs, or, A New OSR Primer

Principia Apocrypha is a new, free Primer for OSR and other Old School Style RPG Gaming in the form of a collection of Apocalypse World-s...

lithyscaphe.blogspot.com

 

[SirFrog]

So to return to the OP by Agemegos, rather than Finch's deeply flawed and error-ridden OSR Primer I'd recommend the far superior, imaginative and most importantly inspiring Philotomy’s Musings by Jason Cone.

Philotomy's Musings

The Principia Apocrypha, although still displaying light touches of OSR chauvinism m, also has a lot of good ideas in it.

Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs, or, A New OSR Primer

Principia Apocrypha is a new, free Primer for OSR and other Old School Style RPG Gaming in the form of a collection of Apocalypse World-s...

lithyscaphe.blogspot.com

I even find that document to be overly prescriptive. It declares techniques as doctrine (and yes, I will invoke Clausewitz if necessary…Jomini was an idiot)

 

[robertsconley]

Yes, exactly, the P is asking folks to sell him on OSR GMing styles. I think some good attempts at definitions have been thrown out so far, but no one has quite accomplished answering the OP's inquiry.

Because it is pretty much "All of the Above". The thing that skews actual "histogram" of styles is the fact that many systems that label themselves OSR are mechanically lite compared to many of the mainstream alternatives. And does impact the game side of a campaign. Also some game styles play out a bit differently with OSR systems. For example, people who like to fiddle with the system as players tend to focus on the magic items instead of feats or multi-classing.

However, when it comes to the roleplaying side, you get same the variations as you do with any other RPG.

 

[Vile Traveller]

Can I add the important footnote that sometimes it's fun to try different accents.

Or choose only games that fit your own accent. Near the end of a Ravenloft campaign I had our new player tell me, "Oh, you actually talk like that! I thought you were in character this whole time."

 

[JoeNuttall]

I certainly don’t see the play advice I gave as universally good.

Yes I can see that, and infact after thinking a second time I don't think that disparate goals is necessarily an issue for OSR games either. For an open table OSR game you would no doubt see exactly that.

 

[AsenRG]

This is true of the two posts immediately above yours. But they are values that are embraced by the OSR though. They're necessary but not sufficient. They're good lessons that some people can learn from the OSR.

And seeing as my half-random post started the whole thing: they're also why I said I recommend the OSR Refereeing advice.

That's definitely true of the OSR and not true in general for RPGs so that's a good example.

Actually no, exploration is a technique used in multiple non-D&D-related RPGs. I recall a Classic Traveller adventure where you explore an abandoned ship/station, for example, and that is from the 70ies...
I'm definitely sure there were novels that were dealing with exploration that predate D&D, too, so it only makes sense.

You just don't need to use it in every session. One session you might be exploring an abandoned ship, another session might be all about dealing with local politics and administration on a backwater planet.

 

[Gringnr]

Worth remembering that almost the entirety of GM advice available when the old school was the new school was what was found in the rulebooks or learned from one's gaming peers. Or maybe gaming magazines. Probably the best advice I'd give to anyone looking for "old school" referee advice is:

-Read the rules

-Play the game according to what you just read. Discuss/adjudicate as necessary. Houserule to taste.

-Try not to overthink it. The box says "Ages 12 And Up" for a reason.

 

[Arminius]

It's overly quantified, but if you're stocking a dungeon it's not a bad rule of thumb.

However, to add some emphasis, the quoted 3e text refers to an adventure, not a dungeon/location. I don’t know 3e all that well but in 0e/1e a dungeon ≠ an adventure. It could be multiple adventures, and there is text in the PHB that makes clear a dungeon expedition doesn’t mean hitting every room (p. 109, “avoid unnecessary encounters” etc.).

One might object that this advice comes from early days and isn’t relevant once activity moved past “unrealistic dungeons” but the moral effect could be and was carried on among a subset of gamers. (Of course that may not be the only time it appeared, and one could consider it implicit even in the rules per se, as well as the unwritten culture of the game. It’s just one time that it stands out clearly in my memory.)

 

[Instantnoodl]

Hehe. I'm happy that the response to my introduction sparked this thread. Great read! I will cite JAMUMU and add my own 2 cents on the stuff that matters the most to my games.

b) No Challenge Ratings or Balanced Encounters, though warnings of dire things ahead are acceptable

Communicating danger, be it for a upcoming really dangerous trap or monster is really important. I don't think OSR style games are inherently more deadly if it's clear that not all encounters are to be taken / won (+ fleeing is a option) and clues of the danger are given. The upsides imo in not having balanced encounters is that creativity is incentivized even more. And victory feels awesome. You can twist even unbalanced encounters in your favor if you leave the stats on your sheet behind and think about creative (and sometimes crazy) solutions involving the environment, your items and party members. Rulings, not rules will come up with something for any crazy but reasonable idea!

e) Not every encounter is a fight, morale checks or similar randomisers can make for interesting interactions with monsters

Monster attacking should not be the default interaction. If there is no clear reason that the monster attacks don't force it to risk it's own life. If unsure you can roll a reaction to see what the monster wants to do, otherwise just let the player interact with it. This leads to cooler situation than default to fighting. The monsters also have life's that they might not want to lose.

f) No Adventure Path/meta-plots/Big GM Story Beat Campaign Thing: the story is what happens at the table each session

Starting out as a DM with 5e really overwhelmed me. I wanted to build these grand settings for players to enjoy. Was scared of the players leaving the railroad and not having answers at hand to their questions. I burned myself out by fleshing out every little detail of a world while the players only cared about like 10% of the info. Now I do it totally different. I moved away from thinking in terms of adventure paths and just giving the players a basic sandbox with some locations to explore and inspect what the players want to do in the world. I only flesh out parts that they are interested in on a session by session basis. Keeps the workload low while better aligning with what the players want and seem to enjoy. So the players are unknowingly building the world with me! and sometimes they don't even want some complex story and just explore some Dungeon and find some loot in a session. So why should I force some big meta plot on them?

g) Rulings, not rules: adjudicate, roll, argue the toss after the session, but be open to changing it in future

I love the "Rulings, not rules" sentiment + don't roll too many unnecessary times if something already should work or makes sense. I mostly use B/X in the form of OSE. At the Open Table I host 95% of the people never played a TTRPG before. The rest probably played 5e or Pathfinder. Not having a lot of rules and just coming up with something reasonable in case it's needed let's the game flow really well. The players don't need to know a lot of rules and I just come up with stuff on case by case basis. No long "Hm... I think there was a rule for that wait a sec" moments.

---

And this:

he core takeaway from Holmes is, no matter what crazy shit the players come up with, roll with it. It may work, it may not. Either way, it'll be fun.

---

But I can totally understand that the OSR approach and the systems are not for everyone. Everyone should see what works the best for them and the players. What brings the most fun. Pick what works and leave behind what doesn't. Be open to feedback and change and adapt. For me diving into OSR was like a awakening and I'm way more comfortable running my games than I've ever been. The ideas just really resonate well with me and I get lots of positive feedback from my open table so I think I'm doing enough right

 

[JoeNuttall]

And at the same time, lots of OSR games might be using pre-prepared adventures, and some of those aren't "exploration" at all. Railroad was part and parcel of (some) old-school adventures as well, I've been told. And after that it would all depend on what the individual GM was running.

There's an important distinction between old school (how D&D was played in the 70's), and OSR (which was a definate movement), and playing with old D&D rulesets.

OSR definately does not have railroads. The absence of railroads was a core defining feature of the movement.

Only one published module of 200 from the 1970s has a railroad scenario (the original Rahasia). There were linear adventures - specifically many tournaments were linear explorations to make them a similar experience for all parties and hence make the marking fair. The husband of the author of Rahasia (!) claims in the introduction that this railroading is all his invention (and it's the best thing since sliced bread). Nor have I seen it in any of the play reports published at the time. With no contemporary evidence that railroading was present in the '70s, and evidence to the contrary, I think railroading was a vanishingly small part of old school play (despite how some of the DM's of the time have run "old school" adventures at tournaments).

There are, of course, plenty of railroad modules published for AD&D.

So no, the idea that exploration is part and parcel of old-school play doesn't mean it's crucial. AFAICT, that's part of the revisionism...which BTW I totally expect from any new movement, so it doesn't surprise me. (I just look at whether it would make the game better).

The revisionism in this case is surely that the notion that exploration wasn't crucial to D&D in the '70s. I don't see any evidence that it wasn't, other than later recollections (which are unreliable).

The only way to prove it is to find a play report from a 70's fanzine/APA which doesn't have exploration as the core of the game - there are hundreds of these play reports so you can easily see how people played.

 

[AsenRG]

I would have assumed that the influence comes from the source material rather than the games that implemented the mechanic.

I'm assuming the same for now.

There's an important distinction between old school (how D&D was played in the 70's), and OSR (which was a definate movement), and playing with old D&D rulesets.

Well, most people, including our robertsconley are defining OSR as "old-school games using old D&D-inspired rulesets", AFAICT.

OSR definately does not have railroads. The absence of railroads was a core defining feature of the movement.

OSR, no especially in your definition. Old-school games using D&D-style rulesets...probably had them, at least in some instances. Those might not be the instances you, or the OSR in general, are imitating, but they also existed in the 70ies and 80ies, AFAICT.

Only one published module of 200 from the 1970s has a railroad scenario (the original Rahasia). There were linear adventures - specifically many tournaments were linear explorations to make them a similar experience for all parties and hence make the marking fair. The husband of the author of Rahasia (!) claims in the introduction that this railroading is all his invention (and it's the best thing since sliced bread).

Bwahahaha...I've met such people, indeed!

Nor have I seen it in any of the play reports published at the time. With no contemporary evidence that railroading was present in the '70s, and evidence to the contrary, I think railroading was a vanishingly small part of old school play (despite how some of the DM's of the time have run "old school" adventures at tournaments).

Why exclude a part of it, though? It might not fit your definition of OSR, but that means that we're using different definitions.

There are, of course, plenty of railroad modules published for AD&D.

AD&D is old-school enough for me, and has inspired at least some OSR games. So no, I'd say those modules definitely count.

The revisionism in this case is surely that the notion that exploration wasn't crucial to D&D in the '70s. I don't see any evidence that it wasn't, other than later recollections (which are unreliable).

It was probably a large part of it. What I'm saying is that, to the best of my ability to determine*, it wasn't as big a part of it as the current OSR wants it to be.
It might have been the best part of it and the one most worthy of emulation, mind you. That I can accept, I definitely don't think railroading is "best thing since sliced bread"...

*I was unable to speak English in the 80ies and wasn't born in the 70ies, so it's all something I have to determine, no matter what you say. After all, all narrators can be unreliable, and usually are, even the well-intentioned ones might simply lack enough information.

The only way to prove it is to find a play report from a 70's fanzine/APA which doesn't have exploration as the core of the game - there are hundreds of these play reports so you can easily see how people played.

Play reports are, to me, functionally the same as "recollections"...i.e. "unreliable". And I've written a few myself.

Quite possibly. But Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are a long way from Sword and Sorcery.

The space magic swashbucklers would actually fit quite well in an S&S milieu, IMO!

 

[robertsconley]

I'm assuming the same for now.


Well, most people, including our robertsconley are defining OSR as "old-school games using old D&D-inspired rulesets", AFAICT.

And other games that the folks involved in playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions are interested in. Just that other category is incredibly diverse. For example, I have numerous blog posts about and shared material on GURPS and Traveller. Dan Proctor of Goblinoid Games also owns the Pacesetter line of RPGs. And so on.

But overall that is correct. What keeps the OSR grounded is its focus on older editions of D&D. What drives the OSR is what I stated 15 years ago.

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

Also, folks need to keep in mind that the OSR is part of a larger old school renaissance in older editions of all RPGs and their play styles. The difference between the two that many other older RPGs still have their original publisher in business like Runequest, or due to circumstances never suffered a lapse of continuity among its fans like Traveller.

 

[SirFrog]

People keep trying to pigeonhole OSR, it’s grown beyond the tiny box built for it and now fills the forest.

 

[sharps54]

People keep trying to pigeonhole OSR, it’s grown beyond the tiny box built for it and now fills the forest.

Yep, in an interview last October Matt Finch referred to Mothership as an OSR game.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Can I add the important footnote that sometimes it's fun to try different accents. Not all your dwarves need to speak in cod-Glaswegian.

My dwarves speak with snooty French accents.

 

[Savage Schemer]

My dwarves speak with snooty French accents.

That's funny. My elves do the same.

 

[Weru]

There are several of the most commonly referenced OSR guides available here that you can take a look at.

Definitely, and I would also add Philotomy's Musings and Muster to that list.

 

[chuckdee]

That's funny. My elves do the same.

My elves are Slavic

 

[AsenRG]

I just posted a long-ass review of Arbiter of Worlds in my FB post. (An woman immediately said the reference to Refereeing seems weird, but she'd like to read the book).

Suffice it to say, I'm kinda biased. It's a book that removes the need for me to write my own book on Refereeing, I'd add only system advice and change some nuances and system-level advice.

My elves are Slavic

I just came here to post about AoW, and I see this...
Now I'm curious what do they look like, and whether Perun and Lada approve of being associated with that effeminate bunch!

My full review is below, if anyone is interested:

"When you decide you want to run a game but you're not sure how, which book do you turn to first?
If your answer is "the DMG," we aren't talking about the same thing. The DMG I expect you to have read (if there is such a book in the system at all, most just have a section on the Leader in the book-but still, I expect you to have read it, even if you don't necessarily agree with the recommendations).
But if your answer is some other book, I recommend Arbiter of Worlds...
Arbiter of Worlds by Alexander Macris is the best book on refereeing I've read, bar none.
Now, I'm obviously biased in this case. What the book recommends doesn't just coincide with my views on game keeping - to the extent that there were only 6 (or thereabouts) things I would argue with the author about...
No, even the examples and quotes he gives are often the ones I would use! (For example, in the appendix on the alignment, his description of Neutral Alignment made me think "me vs my brother, me and my brother vs our cousin, me, my brother and my cousin vs the stranger". Guess what was Macris' example?)
As a comparison, I'll tell you that with other "how to GM" books, I have 6-10 objections by page three at the latest (well, usually page three after the intro, I'm not such a contrarian!)
So what does Alexander Macris recommend? Sandboxing, story-after-the-session, a web of possible stories instead of a storyline, personal responsibility and initiative, 0% fudging (except when it's totally irrelevant), player choices as the driving force of the campaign, a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches. If these things sound familiar and clear to you, 1) keep digging, the rabbit hole isn't deep enough (I should know...) and 2) congratulations, no need to read the rest.
(By the way, what I can't judge is how good Macris' explanations are for beginner Referees. But by all means, we should find out: as I said, I'll be giving away the book to some of the prospective young GMs - why do you think I ordered 5 books? So we'll find out how well it works for them, I'm sure.
Now, let me stress that it works just fine for new Referees - I'm wondering whether the explanations would be sufficient! But I've taught this to new people, and I've seen it working for games from Cepheus and Mythras to Exalted and Atomic Highway).

Are you still here? Okay... given what the text in parentheses says, let me explain. It'll just become clear what style is recommended.
Sandbox and story-after-session mean, in combination, that players can do whatever they want. The "story" isn't pre-conceived by the Referee/Arbiter, but is created after the session, based on what happened.
But, as Makris says, the first job of the Presenter is not to tell stories, but to judge. It's no coincidence that the first term for GM is "referee" (but in Bulgairian the term doesn't fit due to coinciding with soccer...let's call it "slang").

However, here comes the personal responsibility part: the Referee cannot guarantee that you will have fun. Nor is it his job! You've come to a game - play in a way you think is fun. Decide what your characters are going to do, and hopefully it's something you find fun. If it's not, it's nobody's fault...
On the other hand, that doesn't mean you'll get away without consequences. Whatever you choose to do means you're not doing something else - which comes with consequences. Decisions, right or wrong, can also have consequences. Did we mention personal responsibility?
This applies to other players as well: talk before the session about what's OK and what's not, understand the social dynamics of the group - and never, ever create conflict between real people! There can be conflict between game characters if the dynamics of real people allow it. In some groups that's OK, in others it's Not OK. The only rule is "don't lose friends because of the game".

A story grid is used to help you deal with the idea of not pre-writing the story. (I explain it with examples from TVTropes, but whatever). The idea is that the Referee doesn't have a pre-set end goal - the characters can have an end goal, but not the Referee! And, if the "face" of the group seduces the elven princess (or prince) and is betrayed by her, at their next meeting he can 1) forgive her, which is one storyline, 2) reprimand and abandon her, which is another storyline, or 3) something else. But the point is, it depends on the choices of the game characters!

Initiative, by the way, just means you can find your own goals, too. Some of the best sessions have come when players heard about a NPC with unique qualities and went to investigate... and sometimes that NPC was just conceived as part of the scenery.

This is related to another recommendation by Macris (and AsenRG, obviously): world-in-motion. If you go to the village of Gornosuardov (excuse me for the bullshit) and don't deal with the goblin raiders, there's no "static quest" waiting for you on your next visit. Other adventurers may have dealt with them, their feudal lord may have come to their aid, other adventurers may have tried to deal with them and died (and you may have to free enslaved fellows from whom the goblin chieftain has received a mace+1)...
Other recommendations, also very good in my opinion, are how to organize sessions, how to deal with problems between players, how to use the Rules Lawyers...heck, read the book. You'll find it useful. It was usefiul to me too, and I've been leading since last century (note for Pub readers: that makes me a grognard in Bulgarian RPG terms).

I want to add just two more things:
1) The explanation of how to run an interesting battle is very, very good. Quite a few GMs should read it before every session...and watch John Wick, for example.
2) It's also explained what an alignment is, what it can be, and whether it has any grounding in our campaign (spoiler: it depends on the campaign). I highly recommend it to many people...and if you get offended by any of the explanations - sorry, Macris didn't mean to tell you that you are Chaotic Evil: you came to that conclusion yourself!
Personal responsibility, remember?

Oh, and on that note - the book clearly tells you that there is no GMing style that appeals to everyone. You can be the best Referee in that style and if some player wants the opposite - you'd still need a new player for that spot. If they all want something else and you don't want to change your Refereeing style (the GM has a right to have preferences, too, despite what some streamers might lead you to believe!), let someone else run it!

At the end, I'll just add that after reading it (it was loaned to me), I ordered five books on the spot. I'm thinking of giving it away to prospective players!"

 

[Mankcam]

If I ever read another post loudly proclaiming "Rulings Over Rules!" as something that defines OSR, I'll just totally flip the switch
It's about as OSR-specific as my grandma's socks, heh heh
Old school, Nu-school, whateva. All rpg styles have that vibe, or they don't. Some games are rules heavy, some are rules lite, some promote adhering to the RAW, whilst others encourage you to go off the beaten path if you don't like the ink of the page.
It pretty much pertains to all eras of rpgs and is in no way OSR specific.
It's often used as a strawman arguement to define some Us vs Them mentality, if I see it again I'll go off my trolley

Ok I'll go back to my Friday night beer now, heh heh

 

[S'mon]

I feel OSR play focuses pretty strongly on exploration of an external environment. That environment might be Gygaxian-naturalistic, funhouse dungeon, LoTFP horror porn or whatever, but exploration is pretty well always the focus of OSR play. OSR also has PC power gain as a secondary play goal, but quite a fair bit less so than most actual Old School play, I think.

Some things that are generally not focused on:

Inter-PC relationships
A player character's internal state of mind
The Story
The Rules

Neo-Trad (Critters & other actor types) tends to focus on Inter-PC relationships and PC's internal state of mind
Trad (Hickman/Weiss, White Wolf) focuses on The Story - the pre-written story
Forgeist games focus on story creation at the table, via the rules.
Pathfinder/3e and 4e type games focus on the rules/crunch plus story. 3e/PF focuses on pre-written story, 4e is more into story creation.
Those are all things OSR type games tend to avoid.

 

[S'mon]

There's an important distinction between old school (how D&D was played in the 70's), and OSR (which was a definate movement), and playing with old D&D rulesets.

Yes indeed. My impression is the OSR movement bears some resemblance to one sort of play style that was I think fairly common in the US Midwest in the mid to late 1970s. It certainly isn't about all the ways D&D or RPGs were played in the 1970s.

One thing that really struck me was that OSRIC was initially created with what I think of as the 'Dragonsfoot Ethos', a focus on 1e AD&D style high level, high powered modules to be bought and played. Many Dragonsfooters have an almost fetishistic relationship with old TSR modules, and for them the module is the primary focus of play (or discussion, if they don't actually play). But the OSR movement as it developed became much more about sandbox play, megadungeons, exploration of living world - pretty much the opposite of 'string of modules' games.

 

[AsenRG]

If I ever read another post loudly proclaiming "Rulings Over Rules!" as something that defines OSR, I'll just totally flip the switch
It's about as OSR-specific as my grandma's socks, heh heh
Old school, Nu-school, whateva. All rpg styles have that vibe, or they don't. Some games are rules heavy, some are rules lite, some promote adhering to the RAW, whilst others encourage you to go off the beaten path if you don't like the ink of the page.
It pretty much pertains to all eras of rpgs and is in no way OSR specific.
It's often used as a strawman arguement to define some Us vs Them mentality, if I see it again I'll go off my trolley

Ok I'll go back to my Friday night beer now, heh heh

For the record, that's why I was arguing with robertsconley that OSR should be about running a game in this style, and not about the mechanics of TSR-era D&D...but he is right that in practice, it came to mean the mechanics more than the style.
Which means I'm going to use an OSR-style game using Mythras mechanics, and if anyone objects, I'll certainly note the objection for future entertainment!

 

[robertsconley]

But the OSR movement as it developed became much more about sandbox play, megadungeons, exploration of living world - pretty much the opposite of 'string of modules' games.

My two cents over the years might have had something to do with that.

 

[robertsconley]

Which means I'm going to use an OSR-style game using Mythras mechanics, and if anyone objects, I'll certainly note the objection for future entertainment!

All I can say is that I didn't change my overall focus when I switched from AD&D 1e to Fantasy Hero and then GURPS. Which was letting the PC trash the setting and using the result of that as part of the background of the next campaign in the setting. And it is still my focus now that I am back to using a form of OD&D.

 

[S'mon]

My two cents over the years might have had something to do with that.

Yes, you've certainly been influential, especially on the Wilderness/hexcrawl side. Not so much on the megadungeon side.

Edit: I've just been adding your Blackmarsh, Wild North & Dwimmermount Wilderness maps onto my Dragonbane campaign! I didn't think Wild North was a good fit for Wilderlands, but it's perfect in a more medieval generic European type setting, which is Dragonbane's default.

 

[AsenRG]

My two cents over the years might have had something to do with that.

And thank you for that, from me personally!

All I can say is that I didn't change my overall focus when I switched from AD&D 1e to Fantasy Hero and then GURPS. Which was letting the PC trash the setting and using the result of that as part of the background of the next campaign in the setting. And it is still my focus now that I am back to using a form of OD&D.

Yes, you didn't, or at least not noticeably to you, as we discussed in the "System Matters - 24 years later" thread. But here's the thing, what some of us can do without noticing can be a huge hurdle for others!
So, to me switching like you did would be a huge problem, and it wouldn't result in the same game IME. I know my limitations, and I'm actually trying to use them to my advantage instead. But running the same game with systems as radically different, is simply beyond me.

I have a reminder every time I see First Son grappling, but I won't go into specifics here. But it's the same thing: people like me (i.e. not gifted at what they do, whether GMing or grappling) need to be taught what others, like you, can make up on the fly.

 

[robertsconley]

Yes, you didn't, or at least not noticeably to you, as we discussed in the "System Matters - 24 years later" thread. But here's the thing, what some of us can do without noticing can be a huge hurdle for others!
So, to me switching like you did would be a huge problem, and it wouldn't result in the same game IME. I know my limitations, and I'm actually trying to use them to my advantage instead. But running the same game with systems as radically different, is simply beyond me.

That has been something I have been trying to figure out how to write up. Basically distill the things I do into a set of options that folks like yourself can use as needed or if the interest is there.

But as to your specific point, my overall recommendation is that a referee should use the system that works best with how they think of a setting. And alongside that, there is nothing wrong with using a system and developing a setting from how the system handles things and what it chooses to detail. So I get where you are coming from.

What I push back against that is the idea that one's setting HAS to be altered just because you change the system.