![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Dec. 5th, 2001 05:23 pm
These Rules are Killing our Game!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
themidnightgirlI'm getting tired of hearing this.
"These rules are killing our game!"
Yes. Some of the rules aren't great. Some rulings aren't great.
But...three years ago we were using the original Laws of The Night as a rules set - a system which, compared to what we run now, was grossly unfair, unbalanced as hell and contained a number of frankly blatant stupidities.
We played.
If there is anything 'killing' a game (and I mean a particular game, rather than the national chronicle as a whole), it's this...
Players and STs.
They must be the ones killing the game, as they are the ones who make it. Not the NST. Not the US ANST. Not Mr Tony Blair. But the players and ST of the game in question.
Being frank, there is a pattern. Almost everyone that is complaining and criticising has recently lost a character. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of sour grapes. But these things colour your perception of a game and of a venue.
You'll never see a game the same way after your first character. The sense of wonder isn't there, the _newness_ isn't there.
If they try to get these back, they end up genning and playing 'exotic' characters. Characters against stereotype. Characters with bizarre backgrounds and powers.
In my experience, 90% of Exotic characters fail. Why? Because they almost always end up as outsiders. And unless people are prepared to be an outsider, they will end up bored, disheartened and on the outside looking in.
I'm not saying that I agree with every rule in the book. I'm not saying that everything is perfect... I recently received a list of really valid criticisms of the CA venue from one of my STs. I've raised several of the criticisms with the NST and stuff.
Recently, I heard someone who has been in the society for just two years saying "It isn't as good as it used to be."
Bollocks.
It is _far_ better now than it was before. Games are better. Plots are better. Even the characters are better, more rounded, more interesting. And less exotic.
"These rules are killing our game!"
Yes. Some of the rules aren't great. Some rulings aren't great.
But...three years ago we were using the original Laws of The Night as a rules set - a system which, compared to what we run now, was grossly unfair, unbalanced as hell and contained a number of frankly blatant stupidities.
We played.
If there is anything 'killing' a game (and I mean a particular game, rather than the national chronicle as a whole), it's this...
Players and STs.
They must be the ones killing the game, as they are the ones who make it. Not the NST. Not the US ANST. Not Mr Tony Blair. But the players and ST of the game in question.
Being frank, there is a pattern. Almost everyone that is complaining and criticising has recently lost a character. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of sour grapes. But these things colour your perception of a game and of a venue.
You'll never see a game the same way after your first character. The sense of wonder isn't there, the _newness_ isn't there.
If they try to get these back, they end up genning and playing 'exotic' characters. Characters against stereotype. Characters with bizarre backgrounds and powers.
In my experience, 90% of Exotic characters fail. Why? Because they almost always end up as outsiders. And unless people are prepared to be an outsider, they will end up bored, disheartened and on the outside looking in.
I'm not saying that I agree with every rule in the book. I'm not saying that everything is perfect... I recently received a list of really valid criticisms of the CA venue from one of my STs. I've raised several of the criticisms with the NST and stuff.
Recently, I heard someone who has been in the society for just two years saying "It isn't as good as it used to be."
Bollocks.
It is _far_ better now than it was before. Games are better. Plots are better. Even the characters are better, more rounded, more interesting. And less exotic.
no subject
I'm no believer in the good old days, and I know that there are very few rules that could seriously spoil my enjoyment of the game, no matter how silly I happen to think them.
But rules which effectively scupper a style of play? If there was a rule that made political characters essentially useless, I think *I'd* be upset.
People care about the game. That's why they care about the rules. They get frustrated with them. I don't think we should be belittling frustration that arises from genuine passion.
no subject
Rules WILL scupper a style of play.
MET rules scupper the LRP sword style of play.
Other systems scupper "Heroic" styles of play because realistic damage takes you down quickly.
The answer is that rules WILL "scupper" certain types of play. Always.
The Camarilla can't be everything to everyone.
no subject
no subject
But how have new rules changed the way Cam is played?
There's still hordes of munchkins, rules lawyers and labyrinthine rules.
;-)
Seriously, what new rules have affected game style?
You're not specifying problems, just making generalisations.
Tim Edwards
no subject
I don't try to solve problems with rules, other than by commenting on rules supplements as and when they are being created (as that's the only time anything anyone says about rules can even have a chance of having effect). I only fight battles I think I have a chance of winning. All I'm trying to do here is promote understanding.
no subject
So yes, we should belittle it. It's useless. It doesn't make the situation better, even if it's based on a genuine love for the game. All it does is make the person spouting it look like an ass and add fuel to the "all the out of character politics" complaints.
Explain. Reason. Argue sensibly. Accept that, occasionally, you may be wrong. or even, you may be right, but things can't change that easily. These aren't complex ideas, but they seem to evade many people.
There is no style of play that has been prevented by a ruling. _Honestly_ that's the case. Some rules make certain activities more difficult, but in no way impossible.
no subject
When you see a problem and can't even get people in positions of authority to acknowledge that the problem exists, that's bound to be frustrating. Frustration isn't a constructive response to this, but it's an understandable one.
no subject
I've tried demonstrating how they don't work. I've tried demonstrating how there are quite a fair number of people who don't think they work. I'd like to think I've not done this to excess, although I probably have, but please let me keep my fantasy.
I really don't think any of it has done any good. Whilst I do have a massive overwhelming nightmarish problem with the rules, that's dwarfed by the utter frustrated horror of having this problem acknowledged, or even given any sense of credence whatsoever. I can tell you, there's nothing that makes you want to bite a chunk out of your desk more than a US ANST telling you, in not so many words "The only problem there is over this matter is you (and all your scummy friends)"
I've not lost 97% of my faith in the system at all...honest, guv'
Sorry Rob, you're SO wrong.
One book with no rules in it, but still.
As an OBSESSIVE gamer and player of a great many systems I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that rules and systems have a massive impact on Roleplaying style and the success of a game.
I cannot state this enough, its a MASSIVE effect.
There are specific things within the Cam Rules, and more importantly the Cam Attitude and method of making rulings that just spoil the whole game whenever they come up.
If you use things straight from the book, people have less cause to complain, they know what they're getting from the get-go but the Cam constantly fiddles, never explaining why or how, just "Here is how you do it now. Deal."
Not healthy.
The reason this has become more and more apparent over here is due to the Americanisation of the UK Cam. A 'Paradigm shift'.
The rules didn't matter so much here before because we were less 'organised' people had house rules on how to do certain things and no-one gave a monkeys. You could bodge stuff to get through a scene and by and large people wouldn't whinge.
Now we have The Rules and if you don't play by The Rules (even where they're shitty and game destroying) you're a worthless outcast and can be called all sorts of nasty stuff with impunity.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that threatening people with a bomb isn't scary when all they'll suffer is a bruise.
I don't have to tell you the status system and protocols are still fuxxored.
i don't have to tell you that Dynamic Magi are shafted when they stray to somewhere where the ST makes everyone use rotes.
I don't have to tell you how SOUL CRUSHING it is to watch your climactic combat scene drag on for 8 boring hours.
Also The Rules only apply to us peons. Them Upstairs can get around them or make things the Official Interpretation when they need to.
We need an INCLUSIVE set of rules that allows all styles, and they need to be less concrete.
5.1 has ENTIRELY the wrong philosophy. Anything that can't adapt, dies.
Hear, hear
Sometimes it just gets too much, the amount of complaints there are about the rules.
People will never agree about the rules.
There are some HUGE areas of discontent about small sections of the rules.
BUT...
Despite this, you CAN enjoy the game. Otherwise, why would people be playing?
Tim Edwards
Re: Hear, hear
Rules are just that, a means of resolving situations that cannot be resolved by pure interaction alone. As we're not hitting each other with rubber swords (thankfully), we have an abstract way of playing RPS, as an example.
I don't care what rules I use, as long as they are the ones everybody else does. When I travel somewhere, I expect a given situation to be resolved the same as I would in accordance with the current rules.
I agree that there are rules that aren't great but I don't see any one rule that would kill the game or my enjoyment playing it.
Re: Hear, hear
Because of their friends.
Because people rely on them to turn shit into diamonds month after month.
Not because of anything else. Not any more. Not for me.
Erm...
I'm currently assembling a list of them, and how and when they came into effect.
And in all honesty, the C/A venue on a national scale isn't as good as it used to be. Individual games can all shine like diamonds, and so can individual regions, but nationally (which, in my experience, is what most long-term travelling players and officers tend to think in terms of) is not really anywhere near as vibrant and interesting as it used to be
IMO, of course
call me mr paranoid but...
To clarify - I'm not losing my rag over one rule but over a sequence of events, finished off by a ruling. To be honest the rules in question are now relativly irrelivent. What I am losing my rag over is the whole process at the moment and the actions and attitudes of certain individuals involved in this process, the rules etc are a symptom of this.
Feed the vultures, my tuppence a bag.
My 2p worth
Look at D&D. The system is an excellent tactical wargame system. For story-telling style roleplaying (as opposed to roll-playing), it's crap. All the good rolEplay-intensive D&D games I've ever heard of changed/ignored half the rules.
What does this say about the rules? It says that for what it was originally desgined for (ie dungeonbashing), it's fine. However for anything beyond that limited scope, it's poo and revisions must be made.
And yes I've played in both type of D&D campaigns. I tried rolEplaying in the out-of-the-book straight-up game and failed miserably as it was all abstract rolling dice. However in a game when the rules were (Literally) chucked out of the room, it worked wonderfully.
Now obviously each individual game can't have it's own complete set of house rules as that would defeat the point of an internationally integrated game. I feel the individual STs should have some leeway to keep the feel of the scene (eg in a mass-combat with many NPCs, not bothering with much of the NPC challenges if it's obvious the PCs will win so you don't fall asleep waiting).
To cut the waffling: the game has grown and developed hugely. The systems should adapt to the new style of game and part of this involves listening to the people using the systems (ie players & STs) and appreciating their feedback, not just throwing it off (they're only players/ASTs, what would THEY know?). If we can't have a ruleset that adapts to the GENUINE needs (not fixing what ain't broke in the first place) then at least allow the STs to override it if they feel it is necessary. How about a vote with the players in the scene to make it democratic?
Feel free to flame now.
Re: My 2p worth
Re: My 2p worth
Re: My 2p worth
Re: My 2p worth
Last Stratford game I ran two scenes - one mob combat, one an auspex challenge on something. Both times I ran straight out the book. Why?
Because I didn't have the huge folder with all the rules supplements with me. I had an almost pocket sized book that was far easier to drag around London, COventry and everywhere else I'd been that weekend.
In the end the players agreed to it, the monsters agreed to it and the combat was over in about 5 minutes.
Re: My 2p worth
Thats just a sop thrown to the wolves to try and calm them. In practice its not so good.
All it takes is one, ONE arsehole, no matter how big the game, to go "No, I want to use the book rules" and you're ALL fuxxored.
Look at what happened when a game decided to use the decent mob rules permanently.
S'bollocks.
Re: My 2p worth
All rules are is a model of (a) reality. They don't define what occurs in it. And they are a long way away from the Roleplay.
As to the 'listening' comment. I'll listen to anyone, but that doesn't mean that I'll do what that person wants. Fundamentally, suppose person X comes to me and says "Rule X is wrong because..."
The options are
a) They are wrong. They've misunderstood something and grasped the wrong end of the stick.
b) It's a judgement call and I disagree. Sometimes, actually, often, these things are judgement calls. There is argument and reasoning both ways and it comes down to a decision. If I get a lot of people saying the same thing, then I reconsider my position, but if not, then we'll have to agree to differ.
c) It's a judgement call and I agree.
d) They're right, the rule is wrong. Sometimes it's possible to see what people were thinking (cf politics ability) but the result is gross and far reaching.
Now, in case a and b, I'm not going to do anything other than explain what the reasoning is. If the person doesn't like that, tough.
In cases c and d, I'll try and get it changed. As best I can. Occasionally, though, it isn't possible. Christi mentioned something about fighting battles you can win. I strongly believe in this. And it's more damaging to have repeated huge fights about things than it is to suck up the occasional one. Fight big battles over big things.
Too often
"They didn't listen to me!" = "They didn't do what _I_ wanted".
If, however, the explanation you have got for disagreeing is rubbish, then complain (and I mean _complain_) away. But it's worth getting people onside first.
Re: My 2p worth
To summarise, the whole thing works better if *everyone* involved listens and responds to each other. Even if that's only to say "I understand your point of view, but I don't agree, because ..." or "I can't do anything about this. You need to do the following if you want change."