Spend enough time online and you'll see this subject come up now and then. I came across it most recently over at the RPG Blog II today.
My own view on this subject is very straight forward. After selecting a set of rules, and then modifying them to meet the group's needs- there is never a good reason to not play them as written. The very act of needing for whatever reason to alter them on the fly is proof that you've selected the wrong rules to begin with, or failed to modify them to suit your needs. In other words, you don't know what you're doing.
Perhaps I need to rephrase that last, while it's true that you may not know what you're doing (or at the very least failed to do it well)- it is perhaps even more likely that you're not willing to admit what you're doing. You say you want to play D&D, and perhaps most of the time you're happy with that- except when it doesn't agree with you and then you in effect cheat to get what you want.
Yes, cheat. That's when someone breaks the rules of a game to suit a desire of their own. Even if it's by agreement. A golfer who shaves strokes off his score with no more than a laugh from his buddies is still cheating. The difference between the golfer who does this and most gamers however is that the golfer is typically at least honest with his pals who heckle him for it but accept it.
Gamers just lie to themselves, saying it's a normal and accepted part of the hobby. And then get mad if someone like me calls them on it. They aren't man enough to admit what they're doing, to others and perhaps even to themselves.
The behavior is very childlike really. It's that greedy part of ourselves that demands things go our way. It's someone losing a bet who then refuses to pay up instead begging for 'the best two out of three'. It speaks ill of the person doing it, and it speaks ill of the hobby that it is commonly accepted.
What's interesting about this is that there are game systems that include mechanics that in practical terms give you anything you want. Don't like those, you can add subsystems to any game to achieve the same goal. Thus a person has to select a system that doesn't (and then refuse to modify it) in order to have the option to cheat. Which tells me that to these people- the act of cheating is more important to them then the playing of the game itself.
Or they can take the golfer's approach, and just admit that they cheat and laugh off the heckling they get for it. It has the advantage of at least being honest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
Fuck yeah! This sums up my opinion perfectly.
I don't mind kitbashing but my personal approach is to announce any changes at character creation or at the beginning of a session (deciding if any retroactive alterations are necessary) and writing it down so it's available for future reference. I also announce exactly why I'm making that change.
I won't ever compromise my integrity as a GM by deciding I don't like a rule in the middle of a session and changing it right then and there. I'll admit to fudging a die or two in the interests of keeping tension high or resolve a situation a bit more tidily (never to kill a PC).
I agree, it is cheating and it just breeds distrust in the long run. And distrust ultimately destroys games and undermines enjoyment.
In an abstract game like golf, I agree. But RPGs attempt to model complex situations. Perhaps I "don't know what I'm doing". I have, on occasion, selected rulesets that gave irrational results, and did not notice until a situation came up in the game. I have also made houserules with unforseen consequences. Sometimes, rules work fine at low level play, but fall apart at higher level. I don't change rules for the hell of it, but if something doesn't work, it doesn't work.
An example. Many years ago, a friend of mine ran an AD&D campaign. At the outset, he announced a strict reading of the rules for opening doors or picking locks. If you fail, you fail for good, and cannot open that door, ever. Fine. He also ruled that doors, if spiked open, might automatically close on their own. Fine. Then the party wound up trapped, half in one room, and half in an adjoining room because of bad dice rolls. The doors had closed by themselves (openly rolled) and every roll to open them failed (openly rolled).
He faced a choice. Keep the rule as written, and end the campaign with this ignomnious end, or admit the unintended consequence and move on. He chose the latter.
Now, I don't think he "didn't know what he was doing". He was tired of the laxness some players brought to the table. Searching for secret doors, opening doors, they were jokes. He wanted to sharpen them up. But the new rule, played as written, led to a dead end. He made an attempt, it didn't work, we moved on.
I'm trying to be civil, but the arrogance of you post really makes my blood boil. I truly doubt you can perfectly predict game outcomes of rules before play. I assume you have never selected the wrong rules, or failed to modify them to suit your needs. But, in the unlikely event that you did, how would you deal with it? Full speed ahead, right into the iceberg, or alter course? Or, would that be cheating?
Leo Knight: Had I been so foolish as to pick that set of rules (which would have failed a basic sanity test in any number of ways) and assuming they had no other way out (which also strikes me as very unlikely)- I would have left the PCs in the room to rot.
Not that they'd be rotting long except in the most extreme cases.
Players in my world aren't disconnected from my world- so the most likely outcome would have been their removal from the room by outside efforts at some point in the future- be it by friend or foe. And the adventure would continue in an unexpected direction.
It's very difficult to imagine the end of campaign due to the event you describe. But let's make it as bad as possible and say no one knows where they went, and no one who would ever travel through that area would open the door.
Thus the very area itself part of the danger, and given those conditions the PCs can just die- much as if they had all fallen into the same trap (which in real terms is exactly what happened). Start over with characters.
After the game I'd decide if the result was what I intended with my house rules, and make changes if necessary that would take effect in the future (but not the past).
BTW, Your blood boiling is your problem, not mine. I neither care about nor control your emotional state. That's your job. Stop taking things personal.
"My own view on this subject is very straight forward. After selecting a set of rules, and then modifying them to meet the group's needs- there is never a good reason to not play them as written."
As written...after you modify them. hah ha. I shall be following "Wal-MartHall" closely. I am simply fascinated by all this...
"The behavior is very childlike really. It's that greedy part of ourselves that demands things go our way. It's someone losing a bet who then refuses to pay up instead begging for 'the best two out of three'. It speaks ill of the person doing it, and it speaks ill of the hobby that it is commonly accepted."
Why must people who play differently from you be accused of moral turpitude? I'll turn it around, if I may: NOT changing a rule on the fly when it is shown not to work well is pig-headed hubris and it speaks to the arrogance and narcissism of the GM who indulges in it. We should be able to assume responsibility for our mistakes and do right by our players and our campaign when the need arises.
Siskoid: You can try that game Siskoid, but even a casual examination would reveal that that it fails.
For example, would you call a baseball player who follows the rules of the game even when he disagrees with them a person who speaks with "arrogance and narcissism"? If so, you're quite the exception. The description most people would use be is "good sportsman".
Indeed, one who tries to break the rules would be said to be arrogant and narcissist.
That you would even attempt such a line of debate tells me much about you. None of it good.
See? Accusing me of moral turpitude again. Is it possible to stick to the arguments and not attack people's character (which you know nothing about)?
Now, as to yours, you equate baseball and golf to RPGs, which I think is an unfair comparison, but I'll let you respond to Crose's point on this.
The definition of "cheating" in an RPG context must be examined. After all, is there "cheating" (in the ethical sense) if the goal of the game is not to "win". In other words, do I "cheat" if I am not attempting to give myself an advantage in the game. And as a GM, why would I? My goal is not to "win", nor are there any "win conditions" for me. Players do not play "against" the GM or vice-versa, so - leaving aside the merely semantic point that RPGs are not a "sport" - we cannot accuse a GM of bad sportsmanship solely for fixing the rules as he goes.
I am obviously not advocating changing rules to somehow hurt the players, to reverse successes or railroad games (which is just bad GMing). But I see nothing wrong with recognizing a flaw in a game (there are too many possibilities for playtesters to ever cover every single one) and "making a call" that goes against the mathematics of the game. Personally, I'd rather find an in-game justification for the wonky result, but there may be times when improvisation will come into play on the mechanical level and/or as a result of consensus.
And by Crose, I actually meant Leo, sorry. A point you didn't not address in your first answer to him.
Siskoid: First off, I did address Leo's point in my answer to him, if not directly. That is, it doesn't matter how abstract a game may or may not be.
In specific, Leo's opening claim was a dodge. He wanted to blame complex interactions for the problem, when if he was really interested in solving the issue- the very complex nature of rpgs gave him any number of ways out that didn't break the rules.
But he knew he can just change the rules to get what he wanted without effort or time.
So instead of getting interesting and unexcepted results out of the game play- he cheated to get what he wanted.
To say he was force to do so because rpgs are complex- is a self-serving lie to justify his behavior. Likely told to himself as much as to others.
To answer your faulty claim about cheating...
Cheating doesn't require 'winning', for the golfer who has shaved strokes knows his buddies are well aware of the fact he didn't win.
Cheating only requires breaking the rules to meet some desire. That desire may be any number of things.
And I have nothing against improvisation in rpgs. Love it in fact. But changing the written rules is not improvisation.
I didn't think Leo's example was a very good one either.
The flaw in the baseball analogy is that you're talking about a cheating baseball (or golf) PLAYER, but the GM is NOT a player, he's a referee.
Now, I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong (and I'm not, I referee sports in real life), but isn't there a certain amount of interpretation that goes with refereeing a game? You don't penalize everything for momentum reasons, and there is a gray zone in just how far a player can go. Same with RPGs really. You may ignore a rule momentarily for flow.
I'll accept your definition of cheating, but will also say that if the "desired effect" of that cheating is for the session to go better, be smoother, less boring, less frustrating, more exciting, in short, more fun for all involved (and I do mean all), then it is not ethically dubious to do so.
In an ideal situation, I agree that we can leave the rules changes to "the next session" and stick to what was agreed in the first place, but when something is clearly broken, that is not an ideal situation.
Siskoid: First off, just because you're something in real life doesn't mean that you're automatically correct on everything concerning it. People are wrong about things in their own professional all the time.
But here I agree with you- there is room for referees using a "certain amount of interpretation". But we need to be clear here what that means.
It doesn't mean that the referee can allow four strikes for one player but hold others to three. Or that he can change the number of allowed strikes for just the 8th inning. He can't change the rules. But he is limited by human judgement and ability and thus gets some slack as result in the 'grey areas'.
In RPGs, there are a vast number of grey areas. For but one example the rules may call for double movement cost when moving through swamp.
It's up to the GM to determine if the rule applies to the current terrain. He may think it's just muddy (which isn't noted in the rules) while another GM would consider it swampy. Both have run the game as written, but one is charging double movement in his game while the other is not.
Or he may improvise in an area where there are no rules (muddy) and charge 1 1/2x movement cost even if he never does that again in the future (there was just something special about that one piece of ground at that time).
BTW, it should also be noted that as owner of the setting, NPCs, and adventure- the GM isn't as honest an actor as the sports referee who has no stakes beyond those of judging the rules. Thus GMs can and should be held to higher standards IMO.
Now to your claim that cheating that results in "the session to go better, be smoother, less boring, less frustrating, more exciting, in short, more fun for all involved (and I do mean all), then it is not ethically dubious to do so."
Is it ethically dubious for a teacher to allow everyone in a class to cheat on a exam because they all consider it "less boring, more fun, etc. for all involved"?
Assume it doesn't affect the final grade (say that is done on the curve). Does that really make it completely acceptable? If you think it does, have you considered what it may mean to set such a precedent.
You agreed that Leo's example was a poor one that could have been better handled by following the rules and flowing with the resulting outcome.
But our hobby's easy acceptance of rule breaking enpowered their group to make a poor choice. They thought they were doing the right thing. This will result in them repeating that choice time and time again from now on.
People are at their best, not when given endless free rope- but when held to standards and limits. Then they turn creative. For there is there is nothing creative about saying "I want this, I now get this".
Morality has actual justification in reality. Cheating has bad effects- that's why it's viewed in a poor light. These being rpgs changes none of that.
Now is there ever a time when cheating is justified? Can conditions be so extreme that we have to bend?
I leave that to you and whatever specific event you've encountered. I will say however that if one does encounter such an event- I would hope that it actually pains you to make the decision to cheat. That you consider it a failure on your part as GM- and not as something you just do as the normal course of playing.
And I would hope that such events are far from common. If they aren't you're not doing something right.
And remember- you can always go with rules upfront that allow you the honest control over what you're now cheating to gain.
First of all, just as RPGs are not sports, GMs aer not teachers, and games are not exams. What may be ethically inappropriate in one, may not translate to the other.
Exams aren't meant to be fun, for example, nor is it their intent and function.
A game, especially one like RPGs where there is only really one team (you do not play against anyone or even against your own "record") exists in a different ethical domain, surely.
Remember, I did speak about consensual rules fixes. In your example, if I gave one player 4 strikes rather than 3 (which is possible even within the rules, just by my calling it a "ball", btw), I doubt other players would agree with that action. There is no consensus. In any competition, there will be those opposed to a rules tweak mid-game because it might give one player an unfair advantage over the other, and in that context, shouldn't be allowed.
But RPGs are not a competition. Consensus is much easier to achieve.
As to the question of challenges bringing out the best in people, I completely agree. This is part of my own ethic. There are no obstacles, only opportunities. Midgame rules fixes would be acceptable to me to counter Negative Play Experiences, but not to remove challenges from the game. Example: A rule we'd initially agreed on slows the game to a crawl and boredom and frustration set in. "Hey guys, how about we forgo the hex grid stuff for the rest of the session?" Everyone agrees because they'd like to get home before midnight, and we move on. If a single player objects, then ok. (Is that cheating or merely writing a new GM-player contract mid-session instead of in between sessions?)
In most cases, I don't see a need to change or bend the rules, and you're right that such things CAN lead to bad gameplay habits. My original point, which stands, is that the simple act of doing so does not constitute an ethical failing.
Siskoid: Now you're dodging like a mad man, looking for any straw to grab. You agree to debate from the example and when you lose you want to abandon them in mass.
I already covered consensus. In my original example of golf, I stated that everyone playing may allow the cheater to cheat- but it's still cheating. RPGS are not different enough from that for the concept to not hold.
I don't care if the entire group agrees, they are all now cheaters. There are no exceptions. In fact, I consider this to be the worse possible outcome as they are all enabling poor behavior in each other.
BTW, if you called a 'ball' on something you knew as a 'strike' in baseball as a ref- you very well that you're cheating at that point. That you'd even reach for that example tells me your problem with morals extend beyond rpgs.
Morality does not change from domain to domain except from the sad POV of the moral relativist- and a true moral realtivist has no need to debate me on the subject because he knows by his own viewpont that we are both equally right.
You are so desperate to be held unaccountable for your own behavior. That is your only goal here.
It's not to have control over game events- there are systems that turn that completely over to you. But you'd rather cheat.
It's not to improve the game. You can do that by house-ruling between sessions. But you'd rather cheat.
And you want everyone, including people you've only heard about online to approve of your cheating.
That you're not going to get here.
Do you have any other reason to be posting?
Here you go again. Just because I debate an issue does not mean I am ethically deviant. In fact, I would not be posting if I didn't think your opinions were of interest. I'm not even opposed to your main argument (that bending rules leads to bad gaming habits - at least, in general). I AM opposed however to your consistent and frequent contention that gaming a certain way (the ways you don't adhere to) is morally unjustifiable.
These are only games, after all, and I think you tend to devalue your own arguments by resorting to attacks on people's character. I'm sure there are many role-players who wouldn't get upset because of a midgame rules change. It doesn't make them dishonest. It doesn't make them lazy. It doesn't make them likely to cheat on their taxes or on exams or at baseball. It doesn't even make them bad gamers.
Why am I posting? You have engaged me in discourse, sir, by the act of posting on your blog and then responding to my comments. It would be rude to cut and run, especially after you stopped with the character attacks (until this point, of course). We both brought in new points, clarifications, examples and questions to the discussion. I'm certainly not trying to convince you of anything (you are as intransigent here as gaming ethic you value), but while the conversation remained interesting, I remained interested.
And now you're just calling me a cheater looking for approval (a grave misrepresentation). Are you then saying my example of how to deal with a Negative Play Experience IN SITU NOT AFTER THE FACT (in my estimation, why wait?), is indeed cheating? You infer it, but do not directly address it. And I continue to find a flaw in your golf analogy, because even if it's a friendly game, golf is still a competition, with a score, and a set challenge (the difficulty of the course). RPGs are not like that.
Siskoid: I'll answer this first because I ready have:
Are you then saying my example of how to deal with a Negative Play Experience IN SITU NOT AFTER THE FACT (in my estimation, why wait?), is indeed cheating?
I called it cheating, the only thing I left to your estimation is if it was justified.
For example, IMO I'd consider it justified if the TKP that should have happened would result in your players murdering your wife and children. Or even your dog/cat.
Of course, you shouldn't be playing with people like that, but hey- it's your game.
You may even wish to draw the line at sometime less impactful and more likely. Like your players refusing to game with you any more (again, you shouldn't be playhing with people like that anyway). That's up to you.
But you are cheating no matter what. The line you draw in justifiying determines your moral standing.
And your line as you presented here- hedonistic is good word for it.
Hahaha. Fair enough.
I was going to ask about between-session houserules, but you made reference to that above. So what you're arguing against is mid-session on-the-fly rules changes, but between-session, ahead-of-time adopted changes aren't bad form?
Wyatt: That's correct.
Ideally I'd want all the rule changes to be before the start of a campaign. But that's not always possible except for the most basic systems. So you to bend a bit, and doing so between sessions is best.
I have found that too many rule changes after the start of the campaign is harmful as it causes the players to disconnect.
This is why I stick to systems I know very well most of the time. There is very little need for house-ruling in such cases.
I want to apologize for my earlier comment. I was angry about something else, and I caught your post at the wrong time. I usually try not to post things like that, but I slipped up. In hindsight, and by reading your subsequent responses, I understand your reasoning. I'll have to give the matter more thought in my own games.
Off topic, I completely agree with your posts on the nerfing of the Enterprise. That's how I found your blog.
Leo: apology accepted. We all have bad days and it's difficult sometimes to not carry a cloud everywhere.
I'm glad you like the Enterprise posts btw :)
I definitely agree that mid-session rules changes are pretty bad form, and take me right out of the game. Looking back, I think that was in part a source of distaste with D&D 4th Edition which led me to stop GMing it. I found myself making mid-session calls and changes that took away from what the game was, and fit it to what I wanted to play. Ultimately, I think that I kept making such changes and ultimately stopped wanting to GM it said that the game was not my style to begin with – as you put it, I'd chosen the wrong set of rules, and furthermore I likely failed to modify them to suit my needs (and I probably would never have been able to do so in the first place).
Though I do find something positive in these experiences in that they drove me to read many other games, and ultimately to start thinking about what I like in games, before, during and after sessions, so I could write something I would be able to play fluidly.
Though I do find something positive in these experiences in that they drove me to read many other games, and ultimately to start thinking about what I like in games, before, during and after sessions, so I could write something I would be able to play fluidly.
And I think that's the best lesson to learn when it comes to this particular subject. There is definitely a segment of the GM population for which house-ruling is a part of the hobby, and that's okay, but it shouldn't have to be for everyone, and the best way to take care of that is to become aware of the kinds of rules you like to run and run the best. With so many games and systems out there, there's likely a good match out there.
I disagree with the absolute statement that rules must never be changed during play. At the very least I must always reserve the right to fix rules on an ad hoc basis during playtesting, and even in other cases, situations may arise that are contrary to logic and therefore offends the sense of realism.
It is however, a very valuable ideal, because it puts pressure on the GM to examine the rules, and to use his foresight, wisdom and intelligence, to identify problem spots and fix them, before game start, or at least between sessions, e.g. if it looks as if the PC party, or just one or two PCs, are headed towards activities or areas that involve rules that have not hitherto been in use, then that's an excellent opportunity to look over those rules once more, to re-familiarize, but also at the same time giving them a "sanity check". "Is this at all shaped like the real world?"
This pressure serves to create a tendency to improve the rules over time, or ultimately to discard the current rule set and go looking for a better one, which is the same effect again: that the quality of the rules used, e.g. if plotted on a graph, becomes higher over time, just with an abrupt jump on the graph at the time the rules system is replaced, rather than the gradual climb that is caused by ongoing fixes to the current rules.
The main problem, though, is not with GMs who make formal explicit changes to the rules, saying them out loud during the session and then writing the down in their house rules document at the earliest opportunity. The real problem is with those GMs who ignore the rules, who reserve the right to ignore any rule on an ad hoc basis, suspending or modifying the functioning of that rule for a time but then returning to the norm at some later point.
The reason this is problematic is of course that the process does not produce any increase in rules quality. Rather it promotes and facilitates the continued usage of badly designed rules. Since I want the rules to be good, I have a severe problem with that.
Nor is there any pressure on the GM, before the campaign starts, when he makes the decision of what rules system to use, to utilize his foresight, wisdom and intelligence to give the rules a "sanity check", as you call it. He just barges ahead, unthinkingly.
Peter34: You make some good points about the benefits of playing the rules as written, all of which I agree with.
I'm not as big of a fan of concept of running into a case where the rules 'break' with game reality.
To me the rules define game reality. And most such breaks are just an unwillingness to accept the result from a personal level, an inability to use the abstraction that's part of every, or both.
For example, a system that uses hit location but makes no exception beyond a 'to hit' modifier' might result in a leg hit of a target behind a wall.
Someone of your mindset might stop the game and either overrule it, or make new rules on the spot.
I'd let it happen, saying that the target was either hit by by a ricochet or twisted (even broke) his own leg while moving avoiding the incoming fire.
The rules and the game continue as agreed upon and written.
After the game, the GM and players may decide they'd enjoy more complex cover rules. And they can add them for future games.
Post a Comment