It should be said, to start with, that I don't disagree with many of the premises in the argument - that players have different, and often conflicting, things that they want from an RPG - but I do disagree with the conclusions reached. Also, I'm not saying that house rules are always, or even mostly, the correct solution to the problem of half the players being dissatisfied with the existing rules, while the other half like them. But I do maintain that it's just as good a solution as sticking with the rules that are causing the problem. Which solution (if either) will work with any given group depends, IMO, on how strongly each 'faction' feels about their preferences, and on many other group dynamics besides.
Mike Holmes:
>This doesn't happen when playing Monopoly, though note that people do alter
>the rules all the time. It's not an unwillingness to change the game, it's
>an understanding that choosing to play that particular game, that everyone
>will be on board with the agenda that the game sets.
>
>
But why must the agenda set by the rulebook always override an agenda
set by the players themselves? Obviously, its a good thing for all the
players to understand and agree to the rule set being used - but,
surely, if the group agrees to a particular house rule, then that's
exactly what's happening? Why does it have to be the official rules that
always win out, when a suggestion is made?
>What does work, the second solution, is to create a game that promotes a
>single agenda like Monopoly does. The odd thing is that people say that we
>who propose this are being narrow-minded or that we're saying that we've
>found "one true way" to play. But we point out that we advocate games for
>all agendas.
>
Yet, you seem to insist that we must follow the agendas laid down by the
writers of published games. If the agenda of one particular group does
not match exactly with a given rule set, you seem to be saying 'tough,
your agenda is forbidden' - or at least, that's how it comes across,
regardless of the intent (which I'm still not sure I fully grasp).
>So what I'm saying is that, instead of getting the rules to bend to
>accommodate every player type, it's often a lot better strategy to try to
>have a rule set that promotes one particular agenda strongly such that the
>players all adhere to it. That is, agreement to play the rules do not only
>constitute an agreement to adhere to the setting conventions, and the
>general rules, but to the specific rules, and the agenda that they promote.
>
>
It seems to me that the combination <published rule set + house rule> is
still a rule set. So why is using one so wrong - and, allegedly,
unsuccessful - when the use of unmodified rule sets is acceptable? In
what generic, qualitative way do the two rule sets differ?
>So what I'm proposing is that you really don't have to alter the HQ rules so
>much, instead present them with a coherent agenda, and get all your players
>to play on the same sheet.
>
But why must that sheet be identical to the one provided in the official
rule book, and if everyone agrees to play from a slightly modified sheet
why shouldn't they do so? Why does it make such a difference which
specific sheet they are playing from, so long as everyone agrees to use
the same one?
>Rather the response is usually something like, "I've made it work with
>multiple player types, why should I try to force players to play one way."
>And players do expect to be allowed to play their way, too. In fact there
>are whole sets of documented dysfunctional player and GM behaviors that all
>deal with trying to force players to play a particular way, or avoiding
>being forced (such as Abused Player Syndrome "Turtling.")
>
>
I confess to not seeing how what you're advocating isn't 'trying to
force players to play a particular way'.
>But what I'm proposing is carrot rather than stick. That is, with a set of
>rules that supports a single agenda, you can often give the player a vision
>of how to play that's attractive enough for them to "come over" (assuming
>they're not already on board). You don't do this, however, by modifying the
>rules to accomodate their agenda. You do it by presenting the one clear
>vision of how to play that will be entertaining to all.
>
>Because here's the dirty secret that nobody wants to admit. All agendas are
>potentially fun. Most players and GMs, having had to struggle to get their
>favorite way to play to occur cling to it for dear life, assuming that if
>they play another way that it'll suck. But you know what? Those focused
>gamist D&D players haven't been deluding themselves all these years that
>they're having fun. They're having fun.
>
Indeed they are. And that's why D&D is a big seller. But, you know what,
all those people who tried it and said 'we don't like it' - they're not
deluding themselves either.
Why do you assume that, if I say I don't like something, that I must be either a liar or self-deluded, when somebody who says they *do* enjoy something (except, apparently, a game with a house rule) is obviously telling the truth? If I have detailed, thorough, experience of something, why is my experience invalid if, and only if, my conclusion differs from yours? Why do you assume that your experience is automatically true for all (or almost all) gamers, while mine isn't true for anyone - including myself?
If I tell you that I don't like coconut, would you claim that that's false, too? Presumably not - yet, frankly, I ain't seeing the difference.
>So, how does not changing the augmenting rules fit into all of this? By not
>having limits on augmenting, you make that rule part of a larger overall
>agenda that says to the players, "Hey, we're not going to restict you from
>trying to win, because the game is not about winning." As soon as you put a
>limit on augments, you tell players that they should be probing such limits,
>looking for how to win.
>
>
I disagree. There's always going to be a limit to probe. Even if you
typically allow ten augments per ability, there are still some you're
not going to accept, or we might as well just say that you can always
augment any given skill with every other skill on your character sheet.
All you're changing with the house rule is where those limits are
perceived to be. The first group, by piling on everything they can think
of, is already probing the limits - in that respect, changing the rule
doesn't affect them. The second group didn't want to probe the limits
anyway, so they're not changing either.
You're left, ultimately, with 'which is more enjoyable for the group?' And I maintain that that differs between different groups, and that it is not the case that anyone can enjoy anything, if only someone politely asks them to do so.
>It's turning the other cheek. The player says, "Take that!" and you say,
>"OK." Soon they learn that it's not what play is about. Now will this work
>with every player? No, not by a longshot. Especially not with players who
>are used to RPGs being about winning to some extent (and I use "winning" as
>code for stepping on up to personal tactical player challenges in play).
>
>
Well, we're talking about a situation in which that has been tried, and
is demonstrably not working for everyone. That what you describe in the
previous paragraph has failed is pretty much the premise that we're
discussing. So, if it's failed - clearly, unequivocally, demonstrably
failed - why should we just continue doing it?
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail