"Follow the Rules" Topic

Dasher once wrote:

People need to read – and follow the rules.
The biggest crime against our hobby was indulging the notion that "these are YOUR rules, if you don't like them, change them!"
Translation: "In order to indulge every petty wannabe who thinks they're smarter than everyone else, and desperate to maintain sales, we hereby give every player carte blanche to be an ass and blithely ignore whatever doesn't help them look clever, rather than show some discipline and learn to play the bloody game as designed because God forbid we expect any objectivity."
Am I wrong?
Maybe.
But try that changing or ignoring rules nonsense at a Poker game.
"My full house should beat his royal flush."
Or a Chess tournament.
"Castling is a BS move, we don't allow it."
Play. The. Game.

TMP link

Do you agree?

No. There are times when a game will "break" because of a problem with the rules – in these circumstances it is sensible for the players to agree to change them. The alternative is to carry on with a game which has become silly or to simply give up.

My view has come to be "Every wargamer deserves his own set of rules." This is based on roughly 50 years of wargaming experience. I have never met someone who did not feel that his interpretation of military history required a change in my rules.

I think the idea of the OP is suitable for tournament gaming but too restrictive for personal games. Life is about the struggle to force the world to conform to our personal biases.
Therefore, rules are made to be modified.

I play The Sword and the Flame regularly, and am "adopting" it for American Revolution and similar.
That involves "changing" as you might imagine.

Obviously I disagree.

TSATF has always been regarded as a tool kit.

The only time the OP's premise holds is when it is necessary world wide that all players be on the same page, as in tournaments.

Very interesting position.

I think there are several points that need to be considered before agreeing or disagreeing.

1. Wargaming does not have a "finished" set of rules that everyone plays.

2. As wargamers we rarely play the game only, instead we play the period. We often play for different reasons than just to play.

3. We use the rules to recreate an event or build a story. This has less to do with the rules than in most other games.

I'm glad he's not in my gaming group!

I've talked to some folks who read the rules once and decide they have to be modified before playing the first game. I do believe in giving the rules a chance before changing them to suit you.

That said, I've modified TSATF for several different games (Vikings vs Saxons, Turks vs Greeks). I've also modified Pig Wars (another a tool kit type set of rules).

Grelber

I have heard that the guys who wrote the Empire Napoleonic rules both have a different way of playing it.

We use rules as a template, anything that seems unreasonable we change to what the group feels works.

The "OP" is also begging the question that all rules as written are not only accurate but unambiguous and well written. That is hardly ever the case.

I wholeheartedly agree as long as every player has read the rules and everyone agrees that these are the rules that will be used.
Trying to later accommodate whiny,special snowflakes, just to keep them in the gaming group, only results in the inevitable break up of the group.
I've often played rule sets that I don't particularly like as my playing is mostly social. If I really don't like the rule set, I give my regrets and don't play.

Every set of rules has its flaws. I think the urge to change the rules should be resisted unless a group of players finds either that the combat results are clearly unhistorical or finds definite evidence that some other aspect of the rules is based on a misunderstanding of a given period. Even then, the changes should be kept as minimal as possible or big problems are apt to arise if you try to game against people from outside your usual group--who may not agree at all (whether rightly or wrongly) with your conclusions. It is better to simply find a superior set of rules than to make great changes to an existing set.

No one pays any attention to any of this "do what you want," or "roll a D6 for it mate" stuff. Everyone treats the rules as written as gospel, for good or ill.

No, I don't agree with the OP. His opinion seems silly. As long as all the players around the table are OK with modifying the rules, why does it matter. Are the rules police going to get us?

Now, since I play solo, I can usually get my regular opponent to agree to rules changes.

only if they are handed down from on high as a gold plate…in other words, no.

No.

Sorry, cannot agree with OP's premise.

Playing the game is about enjoying the game and the
others playing it. If you're a tournament player
(and I've never been) then yes, an absolute 'these
are the rules' stance is appropriate and necessary.

However, wiggle room is necessary for social games.

We play as close to "by the book" the first 2 or 3 times, to make sure we understand how the mechanics all fit together.

After that, we might change things though thinking about it, we don't tend to houser use a lot.

From a design perspective, I try to always include optional rules in my games, so people have ways to tweak things "out of the box"

I have never seen a set of rules that can handle every circumstance, with one minor exception, baseball. Having trained as an umpire, I can tell you the rules governing baseball are ridiculous. No one wants a set of wargaming rules that comprehensive. So, house rules are necessary to settle disputes or to cover those times when the rules fall short. I think that is a healthy way to do it.

Bah! Sounds like someone's "winning percentage" isn't as high as he'd like. Referee's rule is law. If you don't like the changes from printed, don't play the game.

I've wasted all the time I am going to waste on "tweaking" rules to my taste. I play them as is or chuck them. If others want to tweak them though – have a blast! No skin off my nose.

Despite being one who has constantly modified rules over many years of wargaming, I can say that Dasher makes a good point. Rules changes are probably the biggest source of frustration and friction in miniatures gaming, especially if the changes are not carefully written down and shared with the players prior to a game. I used modified versions of Fire and Fury for years, and for several different time periods. But recently I began to have second thoughts about it. The problem is that most players, especially ACW ones, who've been in the hobby for any length of time have had occasion to play with these rules and are fairly familiar with them. At a recent con, several of them got very frustrated with the changes I had made, even though (in my humble opinion, at least) they actually improved and speeded up the game! One guy, who is a good personal friend and an excellent gamer, was one of the ones who objected most loudly. This forced me to rethink what I had been doing, and finally to decide that the thing to do is just sit myself down as write my own set of rules. And I think that is what I would have to recommend to others as opposed to trying to endlessly monkey with a published set written by someone else.

Sometimes the rules are poorly written or just leaves something important out. Somewhere in there is a good set of rules, you just have to re-work it. In some cases you have to practically re-write them, because they are otherwise unplayable.

No.

About the only rules I have played without some form of 'fixes' are the DBX series. DBA and HotT are both playable as is, few other rules are in my experience.

Having said that, I do fiddle with DBA a fair amount too and accept that a ruleset that fails to cover every possibility isn't broken.

Grelber and Okiegamer both describe my own reaction to the OP.

As a rules writer who emphasizes years of research before I publish, I certainly think that what I have produced, if bought at all, deserves to be played until the subtleties of history become apparent. After that, changes are either going to be made or not, and then it's fair game.

Fact is, when I first bought and read "The Sword and The Flame" in 1979, it made NO sense to me as a read. Using drawn cards to determine order of movement? Rolling dice to determine the distance--All PER UNIT? What a joke, what errant nonsense.

Two years later, when I actually PLAYED the game for the first time (after over ten years of damage suffered by playing Napoleonic, Ancients, ACW, and other rules written in the 70's era of "The Rules MUST Control EVERYTHING!"), I had my Road to Damascus moment. I was blinded, and then… I could SEE!

TVAG

OP does not make sense. Why then do the authors and publishers frequently issue 2nd, 3rd, 4th editions of their rules. And.. if the already published rule sets are so perfect, why would anyone need to write another?!?

Sorry Bill, not a swipe at you, just the premise of the quoted statement.

As a boardgamer, I say, "hell yes, follow the rules. All else is madness!"

As a miniatures wargamer, I tend to think of the rules more as guidelines. I don't do tournaments, so I NEVER have to conform to every other gamer in the world…

Bashytubits +1

That and some games are intended as open frame works, while others are not.

I really can't quite understand Dasher's point, but generally if he's saying that rules must be absolute with no changes then no, I am more in line with Ed Mohrmann.

I am not at a game for the benefit of the rules. I am at the game for the benefit of my fellow gamers. It's not even a question of the "rules being broken", it's a question of sociability and sportsmanship.

In my campaign game for example I have cast the rules such that "pile ons" either can't be done or don't work. This is where six players in six different countries gang up on one for an easy victory in a lynching. It's a game, I don't care how realistic it may be by history, you are not going to do a beat down on your friend. I don't care how pitiful Poland is against Germany in WWII, when you get to the table you are going to be working on a spirit of equality. It's why I do Imagi-Nations. When in the campaign game people have complained that even when they WERE able to get six people attacking one, and I disallowed the move, with "go pick on someone your own size" I would also ask them "Would you like someone to do that to you?" Their facial expression showed their answer. The fun and good times of my friends is far more important than veracity to the rules.

It's a game, the rules are there only to serve the players and allow us to have fun.

It is only a game and we should be able to reinvent the rules if we wish. However, we should consult and get agreement with our opponent. There are rules that are constantly altered in games like Monopoly, which has been around since the 1930s and sold millions of copies. Some of the Monopoly rules changes became the "Short Game" etc.
Without some innovation, the games die.
.

I don't agree with the quoted segment. It is an extreme view positing itself against a strawman opposing extreme view.

It is possible for rules to be well-formed and not in need of revision, or is it possible for rules to be poorly worked through and in dire need of revision.

What constitutes "rules" is one of the things we don't agree on and one of the things that inhibits discussion on this (and many other) topic(s).

Close on the heels of that issue are what constitutes "change". If you are adding material to the rules to cover situations not applicable to the "old" rules is that a change to rules or is that a different set of rules (with the "old" ones contained) that covers a different, expanded milieu?

Comprehensiveness and intent get to Weasel's point that some rules are intended to be starting points.

Ultimately, I do believe you need to actually read the rules and play them several times in several different scenarios as written to know enough about them to modify them (there are rare exceptions).

If the issue is that the rules you have don't focus on enough of the things you (collectively) find important and focus too much on things you find unimportant, it is best to find new rules rather than to attempt to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.

I have no problem with house rules or modified rules. Most of my experience with them is not really changing the "rules" (the description of the dynamics amoung the units), but:
(1) providing different stats for additional or different units
(2) adding a rule for a dynamic the rules did not intend to address
(3) creating additional material related to the scenario in terms of a meta-game.

Most actual house "rules" I have seen consist of slightly modifying an existing rule for a dynamic the rules did not intend to address.

I have cast the rules such that "pile ons" either can't be done or don't work

No problem with Ottoathome's approach, but this is something that I would handle with victory conditions rather than rules. Use the meta-game reward to incentivize players to behave the way the scenario designer intends (the way that is most enjoyable, one would hope!).

Without some innovation, the games die.

Chess (and related games) in its current form, has been around for a lot longer than Monopoly and seems to be doing alright.

Now that I am thinking about it, isn't scenario victory conditions a form of house rule too?

One thought occurred to me.

In my group of gamers which varies between five and eight at a game out of a total of a dozen people, this issue has NEVER come up. We have never had great acrimony about changing rules or modifying them. People forget specific rules and it's obvious many of them have not read them thoroughly, but they try to play them to the spirit of the rules, and there has NEVER been an argument or acrimony when we have tweaked the rules or made changes.

Now that I am thinking about it, isn't scenario victory conditions a form of house rule too?

Not in my view. Victory conditions and scenario are fundamentally independent of the dynamics of the game. That's why you can transport both from rule system to rule system.

F'r'ex Ramses II v Muwatalli II at Kadesh is an overall 20:12 force ratio with broken up 16K infantry and 4K chariots vs 9K infantry to 3K chariots, respectively. (Or whatever reference numbers you use.) The battle runs around the city, which is situated at the fork of river and …

How you represent that with miniatures on a battlefield is dependent on your system of choice. It could be 16, 4, 9, and 3 minis or something with an appropriate ratio. What you actually use for the terrain, again, is system specific but a function of the (up there grossly abbreviated) scenario description.

Victory conditions, too. Whether you view success as a casualty ratio, capturing tactical objectives, breaking the will of one side, or some combination of those (or other stuff) transfers from system to system. Only how you account for it is system specific.

While I'm at it, the same with stats for the forces. If we have some concept of Egyptian chariots being faster but less resilient than Hittite chariots (I do), then we choose an appropriate set of stats for the system that generate that effect to the degree we believe it to be true. How well a particular rule set can embody those concepts in the stats for forces is not a measure of how "good" the system is, just a measure of how appropriate it is for the given scenario.

Because you eventually do have to apply the scenario, victory conditions, and stats for forces to artifacts of the system, you could certainly claim that they are an inherent part of the system itself. That's just not the way I think of it, mostly (I believe) because I like to play wargames where the system melts away and I think about command in the situation rather than min-maxing the mechanics.

I also think game (system, scenario, forces) design is easier and better by keeping those (and a few other things) orthogonal as long as possible.

I would like to know the details about what got the OP to post this topic. Must have been epic.

There are always scenario rules that apply to that particular battle. A stupid rule is a stupid rule. Change it.

You can thank our friends across the pond for all the "these are YOUR rules, if you don't like them, change them!"

I blame the Brits for this. Seems like almost every set of rules written in Merry Old England are not really rules but a series of suggestions. If I wanted to write my own rules, I would and save the money. In fact I have.