Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Jul 20, 2004 14:11:24	There are several arguments running concurrently and recurring on the Wizards of the Coasts boards that are well presented but fall prey to a fallacy that is somewhat indigenous to these boards. This is a fallacy that could be likened to an appeal to separate authorities. Several posters can contribute theses of information to a thread in one of these arguments in the hopes of persuading readers in favor of their claims when in fact there is no true compromise or comparison between the various claims. All posters of varying claims can be, in fact, playing a different type of game altogether. There are those who prefer the core rules alone while there are those who prefer to alter the rules in favor of their own play. In this dissertation, I will provide the foundation of rules in a game system along with reason for changing the rules for ones own purpose, after which I will present the difference between core and house rules along with the need to distinguish between core and house rules, especially on these boards. Most everyone agrees that the basic need for rules in a role-playing game is for the simple fact of arbitration. It is the final leap from imaginary play to a role-playing game. It is the quintessential answer, in any RPG, to who shoot who first. However, beyond this, the rules also begin to provide the basis for the theme and feel of a game system. A simple change in the rules of a system can change the outlook of the game. Take, for example, a game system that incorporates a determination system to resolve not only who shot who first but also where exactly they have hit their target as a large portion of its own combat rules. Anyone browsing a rulebook that includes these rules will know that the game system presented will lean more towards a realistic side of arbitration. One might speculate that various effects, temporary and lasting, will come into play depending on the locations capable of being hit. These effects could range from variance in damage depending on location to permanent effects; such as a limp in the leg wounded or limited use of the arm/hand damaged ever after. In this example, anyone looking at or using this system will understand part of the feel of this game is the want of the designers to provide a gritty reality role-playing experience. Players of this game will understand that, as in real life, combat is lethal and even the survivors can forever be changed afterwards. All RPG rules consist of major and minor elements; the sum of which adds up to the Spirit of the Game system itself. The Spirit of the Game represents the style of play and the feel of the game that the designers intended when they sat down and decided to create their own RPG gaming system. However, every gaming group that plays a gaming system will see their own enjoyment of playing before the Spirit of the Game and this is the Spirit of Play. While a group might understand the designer’s intentions for their game, the players might also believe and are justified in that their own enjoyment of the game stands above the Spirit of the Game. Indeed, that is the sole purpose of playing any RPG; personal satisfaction and enjoyment. A group could easily find a system of gaming rules to present the closest simulation to the type of role-playing game they are interested in role-playing. However, after some play, a group might also agree as a whole that a portion of the rules really hinders their enjoyment of playing together as a group. Using the above example of the gritty reality combat, a group may well decide that the instant kill head shot in the game is ruining their enjoyment in playing it. In this system, death is 75% likely to occur on any hit to the head regardless of damage sustained. The group doesn’t mind that combat is lethal. However after one player was hit with small falling debris, took very minor damage to the head and died, they decided it wasn’t completely realistic for their gaming group. In the Spirit of Play, they should indeed consider affecting a change to this rule to increase their enjoyment of their game. So then, the difference between using the rules provided, the core rules, and rewriting rules to suit ones interest, house rules, is one of personal preference. The difference isn’t that large at all in fact. In the former, the core rules, the game is being played as the designers intended the game to be played and in the latter, the house rules, the game is being played as the players enjoy playing it. Now consider, most groups are rather committed to one another; that is, a fair amount of gaming groups are constituted of friends who enjoy playing the game together. They will most likely be seated amongst the same people every week for as long as they play RPGs. However, even they can, and sometimes do, experience an occasional shift in demographics, much like the other, not so tight-knit groups playing these games do. Perhaps a friend moves away or has priorities that take them away from the group and the group wants to replace the missing element of their gaming group. Whatever the case might be, when those new players come into the more stable groups there can exist, at times, some animosity when the player isn’t familiar or comfortable with the group’s style of play. This animosity can grow to open opposition when they realize they are playing a different game; when they first come across house rules that they do not agree with and where unaware of. The other groups that see more changes in their own demographics are already familiar with this. Most of the players in these groups realize the importance of differentiating at the beginning between the core rules and house rules. It is the reason that all groups should make this separation. When a new player is considering joining a group and the group informs them of all house rules before a game, the player has a better capacity to understand the nature of the game being played and a better indication of whether or not this group is actually right for them. Knowing the differences between the designer’s game and the group’s game can save everyone a lot of hassle due to misunderstandings. Take the above examples again of the gritty reality game. Let us presume a particular group liked a lot of the components of this game but they disliked all the detailed hit location tables and they streamlined them to be more PC friendly (less deadly); this is a noticeable change for anyone familiar with such a system. A new player enters this group and is expecting to play the designer’s game, which they have played countless times in another recently disbanded group. No one in the group informs the new player of their own changes to the game. In the first combat the new player expects to play one way and will be sorely disappointed to realize they are playing an altered game. In this example, the change is drastic enough to change the entire feel of this gritty reality game. In changing the rules to be a little more PC friendly they have removed some of the lethality of the game itself. This presents an evolution from the gritty reality of lethal combat to a game of fast-paced, high action; such as the difference between playing a character in Saving Private Ryan (brutal combat) and playing an agent in James Bond (action packed combat). Both are still realistic in nature and the chances of character death are still prevalent, at least without a major rules revision, but there is a distinction between the two games. Some players will prefer the brutally deadly combat while others will enjoy the more action packed, high-paced combat version of the reality system. Finally, this brings things back to these boards and the need to distinguish between house rules and core rules. There are two basic versions of questions asked which separate the posters intent on whether or not they want information on core rules or house rules. The first question is ‘How do I play the game?’ or variants thereof. The second question is ‘How can I change the game?’ Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two. However, unless specified, on these boards one should generally assume that a poster is asking the first question and not the latter. That, in the end, is the largest fallacy I see in some of the more heated debates on these boards. A poster asks ‘How do I do this in the game’ and respondents indicate ‘Here is how I have changed it in my game.’ The initial poster asks how to play the game and the initial respondents begin dissertations on how they have changed the rules to make them better in their own game/groups. The debate really gets heated when another poster comes along and offers a response based on the Spirit of the Game as intended by the designers and the house rules respondents defend their version against the poster who indicated the designer’s intent. By this time, the initial poster in search of advice has long left the argument while the other posters debate whether the intent of the rules or the house rules are the better way to play the game. No one is even arguing which is the right way to play or when a poster points out that following the designer’s intent is the right way they are called pointed to the designers inclusion of a stipulation that rules can be changed for a groups purpose to stimulate the Spirit of Play for their personal game. There is no better way to play a game that clearly stands out, otherwise all groups would play that game and no arguments would arise over how to play the game. However, there is indeed a right and wrong way to play a game based on the designer’s intentions for their game. This is playing in the Spirit of the Game itself. Likewise, there is indeed a right and wrong way to enjoy the game as perceived by every gaming group. This is gaming in the Spirit of Play. When discussing how to play the game on a board hosted by the designers, one should consider how the game was intended to be played. Modifications, alternatives and variations should only be presented when asked for. Anything else is absolutely confusing to the posters who are actually seeking advice that will influence their style of play. Not only is this confusing to the poster who asked the question but it also leads to arguments over the right way to play the game when in fact the arguers are playing two distinct versions of the game, each the right way from their perspective.
#2 gilean_dup Jul 14, 2005 10:00:19	The problem is that spirit of game designers is unknown. The only thing that can be discussed with any certainty are Rules as Written (RaW). All too often people speaking about the intent of designers only mean the intent they see designers had, e.g. their own intent. Fortunately, such arguments aren't too frequent, and often someone speaks of the true subject, also.
#3 zombiegleemax Jul 26, 2005 8:09:38	The problem is that spirit of game designers is unknown. The only thing that can be discussed with any certainty are Rules as Written (RaW). All too often people speaking about the intent of designers only mean the intent they see designers had, e.g. their own intent. Fortunately, such arguments aren't too frequent, and often someone speaks of the true subject, also. Actually, this is my point. Playing in the Spirit of the Game is playing with the rules as written (RAW). Changing the rules (or changing the RAW) is changing the game to something else all together. I am not speaking from a point saying changing the rules is a bad thing. I believe the Spirit of Play (the enjoyment of the play group and changing the rules for the groups enjoyment) is as important, if not more so, than the Spirit of the game (playing the game as written, with strict adherence to all the RAW). Last year (and plenty in the years prior) when I wrote this article, I noticed a lot of times a question would crop up when someone would ask for a rules clarification and the third or fourth reply would suggest altering the RAW. Then, every other reply after that suggested change to the rules and this would develop into a discussion on better ways to change a rule. Some of those arguments would erupt into a discussion between playing the game as written and playing with rules changes. Most of these would rove so far away from the original topic that the original topic was lost and the original poster had long since left the boards. There is no end to that argument. One should accept they are either playing with the RAW (or in the Spirit of the Game in my context) or that they are playing with House Rules (in the Spirit of Play in my context). An argument between the two is pointless. The boards have been altered since my post actually (no, I am not implying on account of my post). Now in the DM section there is specifically a DM Rules Counseling sub-board for rules specific question. This does alleviate some of the arguments that used to crop up; I believe this is because when someone asks a question in the DM Rules Counseling sub-board they expect an answer to come from authoritative sources (core books, WotC web articles, Dragon Magazine, etc.). If they don’t want a hard answer based on the books, they usually specify that they are interested in house rules or changing the rules. Personally, I have made one house rule to D&D; it has to deal with the charger and their intended target. When I used to see someone asking a rules question about charging however, I never tried to suggest they make my rules alteration – I would give them the answer as written (I’d quote the RAW) in the core books (if I knew it – otherwise I wouldn’t answer). You could say that this article was subtly in favor of differentiating between RAW and house-ruling by saying there is no correct way other than the need to differentiate between these two aspects so that posters can avoid pointless argument.