A quick thought:
One of the ways that people talk about OSR games is that they “don’t have rules for everything,” implying that there are stretches of gameplay where no rules are being used. Rulings over rules, as the saying goes. But I don’t think this is quite right.
In the past, I’ve talked about how the core feature that sets RPGs apart from other tyles of games isn’t actually roleplaying but tactical infinity, where “anything can be attempted.” This isn’t really a rule but a principle; the actual rule that implements it is something like, “you can affect the imaginary world by describing what your character does, and the GM will tell you the outcome.” Let’s call this Rule One (Jacob Hurst proposed calling it the One Simple Rule, which is funny but probably confusing in the end.)
The trouble is that Rule One is so fundamental to RPG gameplay that oftentimes people don’t think of it as a rule. For example, all the debates over whether RPGs really need rules or not are actually about whether they need rules other than this one. The necessity of Rule One is never debated because it’s invisible. It’s the water we swim in.
Nevertheless, it is a real rule, perhaps the most revolutionary rule in gaming history. Implementing this rule is what shifted games from closed to open and it unlocked a vast array of experiences that were impossible without it. What the OSR does is put a laser focus on that rule and look for ways to make it fun as possible to use. For example:
How do we design problems that can be overcome with critical thinking rather than mechanics?
How do we design NPCs that seem like real people, rather than quest dispensers or automatons?
How do we design worlds and adventures that give the players freedom and consequences, rather than fixed paths?
All games are about interesting choices, but the OSR just wants those decisions to be in-world rather than mechanical, open-ended rather than limited, and resolved more by human judgment rather than by a strict procedure. In other words, it wants the game to revolve around Rule One.
So, paradoxically, the “rulings over rules” mantra is really just about prioritizing the most fundamental rule of RPGs. And once you start perceiving it as an actual rule it becomes much easier to run campaigns that make the most of it.
If we think about "you can try anything" as a rule, then we can consider other designs in relation to that concept. Do they come before or after it?
Example: The GM describes a button-covered console in an alien spaceship. Does the player ask for a description of the buttons and puzzle out which one to push to activate the life support system, or do they make an Alien Tech check to see if they get it right?
The first case places Rule One first. The player navigates the fictional reality to act. The second one places it after. The player uses a different rule - the skill system - to determine how their character interacts with the fictional reality.
I think that's probably the most basic function of rules in TTRPGs. Do they come before or after the try anything concept?
Phenomenologists (philosophers who investigate the nature of subjective, conscious experience) talk about the “horizon of understanding” which are the implicit structures, assumptions, and background stuff that make experience and thought possible, but which we do not notice or actively consider.
Heidegger holds that we live in a world that is full of interpretations we make without reflection or awareness, before we ever make a conscious interpretation of the world.
See also: Foucault's epistemes and "unthought-of" and Kuhn's paradigms.
Also: Hell yeah, glad to follow you on Substack too, brother.