I've been a player and a GM in both rules-heavy and rules-lite games
I've been a real-life rules lawyer, in that my gaming group (French at the time) needed someone to read and occasionally interpret the content of rules-books written in English whenever they were unsure of what the rules meant -- so I've been a rules-lawyer in the **very unusual** positive sense of that expression
I've come up with several versions of house rules and occasionally inflicted them on players, who only minded it when I came up with complete duds, that I hated myself. Some of these rules have been inflicted on the world at large in print
I have been involved in amateur, semi-professional, and even for a short time professional RPG publishing, as a writer and editor, and publisher, and have even caught a glimpse of the real world behind the closed doors of RPG publishing houses.
--- IMO, rules _do_ actually matter, and it is very important that the rules of a professionally produced RPG be consistent, well written, *extremely* well edited (rules editing is VERY hard work), and fun to play with (depending on various gaming styles, target audiences, et cetera). Now, it doesn't actually matter very much if the occasional glitch gets through, provided that the presentation of the core elements of the game system have been properly designed, written and edited. That's one of the things that errata, revised editions, et cetera are there for --- to correct minor, niggling glitches of minor importance to most people --- but of major importance to the minority out there who have a greater need than most of any section(s) containing the glitch(es), for example people running grandiose Sartar-wide campaigns where every PC is King/Queen and/or otherwise connected very strongly with the Dar subcult, which might be used as the focus and indeed locus for the main action of their gameplay... As further regards the case in point though, ie long online or offline discussions about rules and stuff detract from the game itself : IMO discussions about rules, *except when engaged in by rules designers, editors, and playtesters* should ideally be short and to the point, so that when issues emerge, whether glitches or evidence of some hole or gap in the system, some _short_ discussion can be engaged in by all parties involved, a decision taken by the person in charge at whichever level (GM, editor, designer, publisher, owner, whomever) in order to keep everyone as happy as possible, and then implemented. Bitching about things in a negative, indeed actively _destructive_ manner, or alternatively insisting wrongfully that all glitches should be played according to the letter of game law and not its spirit, is self-evidently a poor method to attain and share in the enjoyment of gaming. Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail