>From: Trotsky <TTrotsky_at_...>
>
>Moving this to the Rules list, as it's off-topic at the RPG list, and at
>
>least two other people were interested in continuing this discussion.
I should have said before that in fact this might not even be on topic for this list, either. It does deal with rules, but in a fairly abstract and theoretical manner that may be beyond the scope of the list (for example, it's barely about HQ anymore). In any case, if the mods would like it moved to yet another venue, I can follow along.
I'll work on it here until they say otherwise, however, under the assumption that you've properly placed it. Note that in the name of disclosure, what I'm reiterating here, is theory banged out by tens of thousands of posts of debate that has occured online first at www.gamingoutpost.com, and then mostly at www.indie-rpgs.com (AKA The Forge). The ground we're covering here is beyond well trodden. There are lots of good articles at The Forge that may well do better than I'm doing here at explaining the position starting with this one (now somewhat out of date, but..): http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
Anyhow, I've apparently been very unclear, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify some points.
>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.
Actually I don't disagree with you on this. You are correct that in some cases, where some players are unwilling to change, that the best thing to do may be to continue to play modifiying the rules to try to make everything work. And if your game is going well using this method, then definitely you should continue with it.
I have provided this other method of solving these problems as an alternative to the more traditonal method. It's worked well for me, and for others I know, but that's just one data point. I think that each game group has to figure out which method will suit them best.
>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?
I never suggest that, in fact, you have to follow the printed rules. I'm suggesting that the rules presented should give a single coherent vision. If, in fact, you alter the rules to do so (which I think you almost have to do with HQ), then you're doing precisely what I suggest.
What I'm saying is that what's not a good idea is to alter the rules to make them so that they try to support more than one style of play (and, again, only if it's problematic). Because in doing so, you allow the underlying problem to persist.
> >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).
I don't propose this. Play like you like. But if a particular game supports a particular agenda well (and, as I've said, I think HQ is closest to one in particular), then you can deliver a single agenda best by not changing the rules. I didn't suggest that you should not ever change rules. Only that in the case in question, that Rob's solution to the problem allows the problem to continue simply hidden from view.
For RPGs that are very "incoherent" (meaning they don't have any clear agenda), and this is most RPGs, I'd say that you have no option at all but to change the rules, or hope that either everyone will just gravitate to one agenda, or that they won't annoy each other with their varying agendas.
Again, it's the very incoherence of early AD&D editions that create a culture in RPGs that feels that the only way to make any game work is to modify it until it works for them. They are correct in these cases. HQ is a bit better in this regard, and especially in the case in question. So I'm giving people the alternative here to understand that they can, in fact, have a potentially superior game experience not by altering the rules, but instead by playing to them strongly.
>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?
The set of rules that's best is the one that works best. Again, if that requires house rules, then in fact that's the superior set of rules. Some RPGs, however, simply don't require any house rules to work best.
> >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?
Again, the agenda doesn't have to match the one in the book to be coherent. That said, why use a rule set that doesn't support your agenda and needs to be altered in order to do so? When there's probably a rule set out there somewhere that does fit your agenda.
In other words, I'm sure somebody somewhere is playing a successful game of GURPS Glorantha. If GURPS best supports their agenda, then they're doing the right thing in using that system.
It just so happens that I play HQ because I feel that it is one of the best games to support my particular agenda as written. I think, too, that many people sense this potential agenda, and would like to try it, but instead bend the rules to try to accommodate other agendas. Which, again, if it works for them (as it seems to have for Rob), then great. But, again, I'm just giving an alternative to playing this way, one that I can only recommend for the advantages that it seems to me to provide.
>Why does it make such a difference which
>specific sheet they are playing from, so long as everyone agrees to use
>the same one?
You have, in fact identified the key for the method that I'm advocating. Get everyone playing the same agenda. No matter how you do it. The strongest way that I've found is to use a rule set and techniques that support that, and only that, agenda.
>I confess to not seeing how what you're advocating isn't 'trying to
>force players to play a particular way'.
For shock value, I'll agree that it is forcing them. If they have fun, this is bad, because???
>From another perspective, it's only "force" in the same way as having laws
are "force." That is, it's a social contract to which the players are
voluntarily agreeing. Nobody has to play my game. If they don't like it, I'd
assume they wouldn't come back. On the contrary, it seems to me that by
agreeing to the mode of play up front that, in fact, they enjoy themselves
more on the average.
It's like I'm selling lemonade, and you're telling me that I'm forcing you to dring lemonade because I don't sell soda, too. Well, it's a lemonade stand, and lemonade is good. I don't have a problem with soda. I'll just sell that at another stand.
To be clear, I play lots of games with lots of different agendas with lots of different people. I'll even play with a different agenda in two different games with the same people. What I try to avoid is playing in game X with people who have not agreed to play with the same agenda.
>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.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Yes, I completely agree that there are people who break off of D&D because it doesn't support their agenda. Many of them should be playing HQ. This natural process, is, in fact, people understanding the problem as I do, and looking for a solution by finding a rule set that supports their agenda better.
Again, this is why we have so many RPGs. Becuase there are many agendas, and each seeks to support one. Most fail, but this is why they get created. Somebody plays game X, determines correctly that the problem with their play is not that the players are bad, but that the system doesn't get them all on the same sheet, and so they head out to create a game that does. (Not understanding this theory, however, they often make the same mistakes as the original designers, thinking that they, of all designers, will be the one to create the one game to rule them all).
>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?
I haven't said anything like this whatsoever.
> > 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.
...
>All you're changing with the house rule is where those limits are
>perceived to be.
You are correct. I misspoke (typed?). I should have said, "As soon as you change the limit on augments to be this particular sort of hard limit..."
That is, the limit I advocate is the soft limit implied in the book where the narrator at some point starts providing push back in the form of improv mods and such. The one that says to the player, "OK, it looks like you've pretty much found all that's interesting to cite here, shall we move on to rolling?"
>From a very technical sense, however, you're correct, the rule doesn't
prevent the narrator from imposing a numerical limit as his own guideline,
and so doing so is not an alteration from that POV. But I think that as a
technique, then, this sends the wrong message. Assuming, again, that like me
you want to support a single agenda.
>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.
I think you're correct in that people often do refuse to try new or different things. But there's nothing about any agenda, I propose, that makes it superior to any other neccessarily. We're talking about many enjoyable ways to play. Yes people have preferences. But just because you like Rock music, doesn't mean that you can't enjoy Jazz, too. It might not be your absolute favorite form, but it might be a good change of pace.
In RPGs, somehow, it's become the assumption that you should cater to all forms at once. When this tends to be highly problematic.
>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?
Two things. First, I agree that if it doesn't work that it needs to be fixed. Again, I'm not saying that Rob shouldn't have made his fix. He did the right thing for him. I'm saying that there's another solution however. My solution is not to merely stick my head in the sand and pretend such an issue doesn't exist. It's to present the game overall, not just this one rule, and to use techniques with these rules, such that the player would not have the problematic agenda in the first place. The problem doesn't occur, because the player for whom Rob is creating the adjustment is playing like the other player for whom the change is unneccessary.
If your game is working well with the house rules that you've created, whether single agenda or multiple, keep doing what you're doing. OTOH, if you find that you still have agenda problems, consider the alternative.
Mike
Powered by hypermail