In praise of "Rulings, not rules"
![Image](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhmgRDi4okqfW76zI_WApZm0DC64rUz6u0NxgcYomXEK36_l-NtQ0BEJ79SrXN_eGwZwOP5kBfrYa9IIEre4LAnPfIkNHqptvaCo6ON-IWMK34Ji-mzgg0rApU8Te82ry3J_n1wEyt5OL1/w640-h480/dungeons-and-dragons-4413051_1920.jpg)
If I look back at my history of roleplaying games, I see one clear arc. The rulebooks got slimmer and slimmer. My gaming started out in earnest with Dungeons & Dragons 3e, which is about an inch thick rulebook. Now, I play systems that barely take up a page. This is mostly the result of having experienced sessions that hit a slow pace for a variety of reasons, such as granular combat, or just discussions about how spells worked. When I learned about the OSR, I was overcome with mixed feelings. The retro-clones seemed excessively punitive, with their “ save or die ” mechanics, the anemic hit point amounts, and total lack of feats. At the time, the table I was playing at was hosted by a GM that was flirting with OSR, but trying to make it work with Pathfinder. This led to some conflicting expectations, and inevitably some tough discussions. However, I was left with a copy of Swords & Wizardry in my hands, and that sort of started my journey into the OSR. Running a game became