# Experience Point:  Screw the rules



## Janx (May 22, 2013)

It's my guess that most people don't know the rules, and won't follow any rule that conflicts with their personal rules.

Since most people follow some variation of the golden rule, they don't so much follow the laws of the land, so much as coincidentally don't collide with them.

Folks drive on the correct side of the road because that's how you get along with other people (golden rule basis), not because the government has a law on the books that says so.

Folks cross the solid white line onto the wide paved shoulder to make a right turn because it's convenient, and they think they are making room for through traffic coming up behind them, even though it is illegal to cross the solid white line onto the shoulder, barring an emergency (the shoulder is not a legal turning lane).

Most folks don't kill people or steal because it's wrong to do so, not because there's a law that says it is a crime.

I read an article a long time ago about Jury Nullification.  One of the points the article made was that the hidden objective of a jury in a trial was also to weigh the law and it's rightness or applicability to the situation, not just whether the defendant had broken the law or not. Apparently, that idea is buried somewhere in the Constitution.   According to the article, judges and lawyers aren't too keen on this element of trial law and don't spend a lot of time talking about it.  The point of the article was for the defendant to bring this point up, so as to nullify the jury with regards to the prosecutor's objective to get a guilty verdict on the technical merit, rather than the "rightness" of the act.

What this article reminded me of, is the issue we hear in politics of judges "legislating from the bench".  I never did any research on the legal points the article made, but if it was correct, than it seems to me that the very point of a trial is to correct for bad laws by "legislating from the bench" because juries and judges are on the front line of assessing the practicality and "rightness" of the law versus the situation.


----------



## Morrus (May 22, 2013)

I may be completely wrong about this, but it reflects my own experience (and indeed my own opinion): there's a trajectory from rules-heavy to rules-light which takes place over a decade or more in terms of preference.

20 years ago, I was all simulationist, gritty, detailed rules. I endlessly write house rules which described specific melee moves, martial arts systems, spell paths, travel/encumbrance/resources.

Now I have no interest in all that. It feels like work for the sake of it, and doesn't add to enjoyment - the ultimate goal of a recreational game.

So I tend towards rules-light these days. I followed a trajectory that I've observed many others follow. That doesn't make it better or worse, of course, and I'm sure others have followed different trajectories.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (May 22, 2013)

Rel,

I cannot agree with you more.  As someone who has been running games, one-shots and campaigns, for 25 years, I can say that this has been the natural evolution of my GMing style.

I play games (and run them) with the desire to tell a story, build characters and engage in dialogue (with allies, enemies, etc.) I am not as concerned with the tactics or the crunch so I tend to gravitate towards games that are rules-lite (but not 'rules-bad').  I will ditch a rule very quickly if I feel it is in the way of what I would like to do or what would be more interesting for story or character development.

Thanks for sharing these wise thoughts.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 22, 2013)

I think rules are really more commitments. And when it comes to common sense overriding laws it's more about commitment to the intention or spirit of the law rather than the blind following of it. Of course it could also be about putting one's self first, but that may be about keeping one's commitments to one's self. It doesn't necessarily mean we are disrespecting others.

It sounds like your client values his buddy's friendship, but needs to admit he can't support both his friend and him self in this case. Self sacrifice is a noble thing, but it also sounds like he isn't doing anyone any favors with the final product. Best to talk it out, get creative, and think of what he can do for his friend that he would enjoy and can commit to.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 23, 2013)

I find that my players and I have been together long enough that we're usually in agreement about the sort of things that rules are intended to resolve. I tend to handwave things a lot these days if I think everyone's on the same page.

To me, the transition over time has been from gamism to simulationism. People don't care what level they are or how powerful, but they do care whether things make sense and feel right. Often, ignoring the rules helps achieve that.

As to rules in real life, I'm firmly in the camp of do what I think is right first, follow the rules second. But I do think that if rules are sensibly conceived and enforced, those tend to be similar.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2013)

Ouch. I find myself right on the other end of the Lawful/Chaotic scale on this one...



Rel said:


> Where I feel some kinship with Kirk is when I feel like my principles point me at smashing a rule, I smash it. Judge me by my results rather than whether I followed all the rules. If there are consequences to breaking the rules, I’ll suffer them without complaint. I think the consequences for breaking it are probably less than the consequences for not.




The problem is that you can't be sure of those consequences, nor where they will fall. As Gandalf says, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." And those rules exist for a reason - in theory, they were put there by people who have examined the situation, applied sober judgement and the perspective the comes from not having to make a decision _right now_, and so have come up with the right response. (Of course, that assumes that those who made the law did so for the right reasons and that those reasons haven't changed. But that's getting pretty deep into politics, so I'll stop there.)

And Kirk, in the new film, provides a very good example of this (and here be spoilers): 



Spoiler



the Prime Directive exists for a damn good reason. And although in violating it he saved Spock's life, he is also shown to have altered the development of that culture, probably significantly. We don't get to see what happens to those people, but is Kirk _really_ right to put the wellbeing of his friend (one Vulcan) ahead of the destiny of an entire nation? Spock himself notes that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," and does so even when it's _his_ life that is in danger.


----------



## Janx (May 23, 2013)

delericho said:


> The problem is that you can't be sure of those consequences, nor where they will fall. As Gandalf says, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." And those rules exist for a reason - in theory, they were put there by people who have examined the situation, applied sober judgement and the perspective the comes from not having to make a decision right now, and so have come up with the right response. (Of course, that assumes that those who made the law did so for the right reasons and that those reasons haven't changed. But that's getting pretty deep into politics, so I'll stop there.)




Hopefully we can continue part of this conversation without hitting politics.

I have a coworker who tested just high enough on the sociopath-ometer to qualify as a good sniper, but not a serial killer when he was in the military.  There's a wall with names of top 5 marksman to pass through the marine corps.  His name is on it.  he tested so high, because he could compy with any order, so long as it was legal.  Meaning, you tell him to shoot that dude over there and he sees it's legal, he'll take the shot and sleep like a baby after doing it.  Of course he also debated with his CO on why they were practicing with .50 cal rounds on human shaped targets when the Geneva Conventions forbid using them on humans (armor piercing rounds are for shooting vehicles, not exposed humans).

As he has said, if he was on jury duty, he would totally side with the cop, because why would the cop lie.

Out of this brief character portrait, I see a Lawful-aligned person.  The rules matter, and this person does take time to go look at the rules.  While this person is less likely to break the law, and less likely to perform a crime of passion (the sociopath/lizard brain in them can't break the logical constraint of the law), this kind of person is quite capable of doing bad things, deciding wrongly in cases if the law enables it.  As the old Hitler's Helpers argument of "I was only following orders" comes up, this is the extreme end where this lawful mentality can go.

As a Chaotic person, I don't trust the guy making the laws.  I'm smarter than over half the people on the planet, and given the dumbness in the laws, I think I know where that half of the population finds employment.  I can make context-sensitive decisions better than a blanket, brute force law that was designed to not allow exceptions, such as where the law is wrong.  I have nothing against cops, but I do see where they are biased, flawed and entitled (I hate that word) in a court of law such that if they make a mistake, you are screwed in court.  The YouTube video on "why you shouldn't talk to cops" convinced me of that.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2013)

Janx said:


> Hopefully we can continue part of this conversation without hitting politics.




First up... thanks for the reply. Lots of good stuff here.



> I have a coworker who tested just high enough on the sociopath-ometer to qualify as a good sniper, but not a serial killer when he was in the military...
> 
> < snip >
> 
> Out of this brief character portrait, I see a Lawful-aligned person.  The rules matter, and this person does take time to go look at the rules.  While this person is less likely to break the law, and less likely to perform a crime of passion (the sociopath/lizard brain in them can't break the logical constraint of the law), this kind of person is quite capable of doing bad things, deciding wrongly in cases if the law enables it.  As the old Hitler's Helpers argument of "I was only following orders" comes up, this is the extreme end where this lawful mentality can go.




Indeed. You've fairly neatly described one of the weaknesses of a (fairly extreme) Lawful position. I have no argument with anything you've said here.



> As a Chaotic person, I don't trust the guy making the laws.




As a Lawful person, I don't particularly trust them myself. 



> I'm smarter than over half the people on the planet, and given the dumbness in the laws, I think I know where that half of the population finds employment.  I can make context-sensitive decisions better than a blanket, brute force law that was designed to not allow exceptions, such as where the law is wrong.




Fair enough. In particular, where the law is wrong, my first impulse would be to endeavour to put it right (using the mechanisms provided for within the law). But if that failed, I'm flexible enough to see the value of disobeying.

But...

Where I take issue, somewhat, is that I've had ample experience of cases where what I _think_ I'm seeing turns out not to be the whole story. And that the conclusions that I draw from the partial information may well prove to be incorrect - in some cases, dangerously so.

That being the case, my approach is to assume that the law is correct _unless and until_ it is shown to be otherwise. Because the people who put it there might well be idiots... or perhaps they knew something I don't.

(And, getting back to RPGs, it's therefore _very definitely_ my approach that I will try to run a new game at least once or twice as written, or as closely as I can manage, before I start hacking about with house rules. AD&D 2nd Edition showed me quite clearly that there are _lots_ of ways I can make the game worse using house rules, and that while there are also lots of ways I can make it better, these are not always immediately obvious.)

YMMV. In this, even more than in some other areas of life, I really don't claim my approach is the One True Way.


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2013)

Hm.

I haven't watched the most recent Trek movie yet.  But something bothered me about the first one.

I don't care how well he did in the one engagement - that _*kid*_ was going to be tossed out of the darned Academy for lack of discipline, and within days he's not just an officer, but Captain of a ship that has enough power to devastate a planet?  Nope.  Not buying it*.  Me, a trained physicist, and the thing that I find hardest to swallow in a Trek movie isn't in the science, but the acceptance of someone so clearly disrespectful of others into a position of real, terrible, life-and-death power.

It kind of makes me think that Simon Pegg might be right - Abrams is setting it up so that his timeline is actually the Mirror Universe.

Be that as it may, I can't say I agree with Janx that folks are following the Golden Rule, rather than the law.  If people really were doing unto others as they'd like done unto them, we'd see a whole lot more people buying their coworkers lunch for a job well done, or getting their GMs a token gift to show how they appreciate the work they do to make games run.  The Golden Rule implies thoughtfulness, and I don't see that in how most folks follow laws.  

By in large, if rules (game or societal) are set up well, following them is an easier, safer, and generally more enjoyable way to go through life.  We're a social species, and having some agreed-upon rules are required for us to not step on each other's toes, and in some cases to keep us from harming each other willfully.  But, no finite set of rules (societal or game) can cover *all* the things that might come up.  So, occasionally we need to exercise a bit of human judgement, rather than follow rules.  And, on occasion, the rules are just frakkin' stupid.

So, as a GM, I will occasionally break or rewrite the rules-as-written.  My players know this, so don't get in a huff about it.

As a player, I may occasionally ask if the rules may be bent, but I won't cheat.  



*The right way to do it was simple - say he clearly showed some aptitude.  Make him a Lieutenant instead of an Ensign upon graduation, and then have some years pass between movies, such that the next one is when he has his command.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I don't care how well he did in the one engagement - that _*kid*_ was going to be tossed out of the darned Academy for lack of discipline, and within days he's not just an officer, but Captain of a ship that has enough power to devastate a planet?  Nope.  Not buying it*.




What bothered me about that one was not so much that he was given command at the end (I was willing to assume Starfleet was basically devastated so needed officers badly), but rather how he came to be in command in the first place.

Basically, after doing what he did to Spock, and especially after his comments about Spock's planet and Spock's _mother_, it should have been utterly impossible for Kirk to take command of that ship - whether he was technically First Officer or not, that man would not have been able to command the loyalty of that crew.



> Be that as it may, I can't say I agree with Janx that folks are following the Golden Rule, rather than the law.  If people really were doing unto others as they'd like done unto them, we'd see a whole lot more people buying their coworkers lunch for a job well done, or getting their GMs a token gift to show how they appreciate the work they do to make games run.




Apropos of nothing: my current campaign is due to wrap up after the next session after two and a bit years of play. The following Friday we're going out so that the players can buy me drinks.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 23, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I don't care how well he did in the one engagement - that _*kid*_ was going to be tossed out of the darned Academy for lack of discipline, and within days he's not just an officer, but Captain of a ship that has enough power to devastate a planet?



First, I had the same reaction.

Thinking about it though, in a way it fits with the Trek vision of an idealized human society. The _reason_ that someone like that would be thrown out is largely a question of accountability. CYA, if you will. If Pike lets him stay and he screws up, Pike will be held accountable. Thus, the impetus is for Pike to get rid of this potential liability.

There's also a subtle form of discrimination implicit here; the idea that age and tenure outweigh competence.

But instead, Kirk gets promoted. Because Pike believes he is the best leader available. Sure, he's a loose cannon, but he has the potential for greatness, so he gets his shot. Which leads me to two conclusions. First, this is closer to a pure meritocracy than any institution we have on this Earth. Second, Pike is an optimist. He'd rather believe that Kirk will become a transcendent leader than play it safe with some by-the-numbers bureaucrat in the captain's chair. And Roddenberry's vision is all about being optimistic about human nature.

So while his promotion is a push, something that feels very Hollywood, it also makes some sense in the context of Star Trek.


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> If Pike lets him stay and he screws up, Pike will be held accountable. Thus, the impetus is for Pike to get rid of this potential liability.
> ...
> Second, Pike is an optimist.




So, one moment he's covering his butt, but the next he's an optimist?  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  Nor do we see signs anywhere else that Starfleet normally exercises that sort of radical meritocracy.  Kirk is clearly stated to be the youngest man ever to reach Captain in the history of the service - he is an exception, not an example of their general approach.

Sorry, Rel - but see, I'm breaking a social convention!  This was supposed to be a thread about breaking rules, and instead it's turning into one about a several-years-old Star Trek movie!


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 23, 2013)

Umbran said:


> So, one moment he's covering his butt, but the next he's an optimist?  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.



I think you misread. If he ditches Kirk, he's covering himself. Since he didn't, he's an optimist.



> Nor do we see signs anywhere else that Starfleet normally exercises that sort of radical meritocracy. Kirk is clearly stated to be the youngest man ever to reach Captain in the history of the service - he is an exception, not an example of their general approach.



Well, Uhura essentially gets promoted because she can understand the language of interest at the time, and then never leaves. Bones gets promoted because the doctor ahead of him is dead and never leaves (he's an experienced physician but not an officer at the time). So it seems like arbitrary promotions are the norm, in this movie. But it is quite a lot of dramatic conceit, I agree, to say that all of this happens at this one time and not at any other time.


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think you misread. If he ditches Kirk, he's covering himself. Since he didn't, he's an optimist.




But, they were *going to* ditch him.  He only failed to get ditched because they had to scramble to get cadets on ships.



> Well, Uhura essentially gets promoted because she can understand the language of interest at the time, and then never leaves. Bones gets promoted because the doctor ahead of him is dead and never leaves (he's an experienced physician but not an officer at the time). So it seems like arbitrary promotions are the norm, in this movie. But it is quite a lot of dramatic conceit, I agree, to say that all of this happens at this one time and not at any other time.




Huh?  I don't recall them stating any other real promotions in the first movie.


----------



## Psikosis (May 26, 2013)

*utilitarian approach*

The philosophy of utilitarianism is pretty common in gaming, I think. The problem is that all of us have heuristics and biases that color all those utilitarian decisions. A few such judgments aren't so bad, but eventually favoritism and other negative biases will pile up for all to see. After all, we like some players more than others or expect a particular action to be taken and become frustrated when it things don't go as you planned. My experience is that it's usually not intentional (e.g., I'm going to kill your PC) nor it is an _overt_ bias (e.g., I don't like gaming with gay people), but try telling that to the person(s) on the wrong end of it. Those are the unintended consequences in the quote below, and they can sink a game over the course of a few sessions. 

Rules, in moderation, provide a backstop against at least some personal bias creep. They provide an objective framework for the GM and players to make decisions and interact. An occasional change to meet a special circumstance is fine, but the rules were designed to fit a particular style of play. If you are changing rules on the fly often, it may be that you need to find a different system.

I teach ethics to social services and medical students. In either profession, there may be marked latitude in judgment. It goes with the territory. Moreover, a certain degree of utilitarianism is required to navigate the labyrinthine bureaucracies doctors and social workers practice in. But studies of professionals' behaviors in these systems show biases become evident when they have significant latitude (e.g., assessment and diagnostic interpretation). It's a hazard of the utilitarian ethical approach. 

I still lean towards utilitarianism, both as a gamer and a professional, but I've learned to be very mindful of the risks involved...






delericho said:


> Ouch. I find myself right on the other end of the Lawful/Chaotic scale on this one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rel (May 27, 2013)

This sort of excellent, thought provoking discussion is what keeps me writing this column every week.  Thanks to all of you!


----------



## Luce (May 29, 2013)

In my view one of the use of rules is so we have a shared common ground on which to base our decisions. Having coordinated mores and values is usually a good thing. However, the diversity of life can present mitigating circumstances. For example,(speaking hypothetically) running somebody over (repeatedly  and on purpose) with a car is seldom justifiable. But if you just seen the said individual kill two policeman after they shot him in the head and he is headed into the occupied nursery school your child is attending may be justified in the eyes of both society and the law.
On the game front, I think many groups make the game their own. Again the individual circumstances and preference may clash but having a common starting point is good even if one's group chooses to deviate from it. Another example, when a fellow DM told me that he is giving its 7th group magic items intended for 15+ level parties my first thought was Monty Haul. After he elaborated that his campaign is intended to wrap up at 10th level and he will be throwing higher level monsters that started to sound not so bad. If memory serves there was supposed to be "prevent the end of the world" scenario. The PCs have 5 days (in game) to disturb a ritual that will merge their world with the negative energy plane or some such. They needed 3 macguffins, each located in different dungeon. The idea being to let the layers try some of the less seen high level stuff in a controlled environment and without the long term implication of magic overload. I see it no more different then giving your players an artifact for a special mission and not letting them keep it long term.
Now different people may have varying expectations  how much the RAW is followed. Without a social contract (implicit or explicit) we start to get into rules and setting lawyers.  Individuals often have an internalized definitions and expectations. If one runs a Forgotten  Realms campaign, where the drow are NG, the mind flayers have managed to snuff the sun and  the surviving members of the Harpers fight side my side with the Black network against the newly emerged abomination menace. Some players may give it a try and even end up enjoying the experience, while others will be frothing at the mouth at the mare suggestion.


----------



## Psikosis (Jul 15, 2013)

snip"In my view one of the use of rules is so we have a shared common ground on which to base our decisions. Having coordinated mores and values is usually a good thing. However, the diversity of life can present mitigating circumstances. For example,(speaking hypothetically) running somebody over (repeatedly and on purpose) with a car is seldom justifiable. But if you just seen the said individual kill two policeman after they shot him in the head and he is headed into the occupied nursery school your child is attending may be justified in the eyes of both society and the law."snip

This statement illustrates my point. How often does the exception happen? Answer: not very. The rules of society apply virtually all the time because they apply to virtually every circumstance. Likewise, a system's rules should apply virtually all the time. Campaign _settings_ are a completely different story, of course. As long the players are interested and enjoying it, the GM can take a canned setting and bend it however s/he wishes. The group makes it their own, as Luce says. But setting and system are independent of each, and each should be treated differently.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2013)

> When have you broken life’s rules to achieve a better outcome?




Damn, that's a good question!

I have broken _society's_ rules more than once, almost always for selfish reasons.  For example, I routinely speed on the highway- sometimes by a LOT.  When I was a littke kid, I did shoplift a few times (I eventually got caught and stopped- I saw how much it hurt my parents).

Arguably, none of the results of that rulebreaking resulted in an objectively better outcome.

When it comes to _life's_ rules, I have never seen them as black and white.*  I can turn down a friend's request for a favor and not lose a moment of sleep...but I usually don't.  When I do, it is for a good reason.

I think part of that is that, as I've aged, I have become more constantly and consistently aware of my situation at any given time.

A dear cousin of mine asked me to help him out.  It seemed like a hotel where he rented a room for a social event had decided not to do so when he showed up.  So I dropped everything and tried to untangle the mess.

And it _was_ messy.  Suffice to say, there was a miscommunication between my cousin and the hotel, largely because of *their* website & automated booking process.  I could, however, have smoothed it all out in minutes by putting my credit card down and signing a piece of paper.

I didn't.

Instead, we helped him find another hotel in the area that would accept his reservation without the need for my very _legal_ and _binding_ assurances.  And a good time was had by him and his guests.

If we had not been able to find that other hotel, he'd have been S.O.L.







* or, more accurately, not all of life's rules are created equal.  It is each person's task of the moment to evaluate which rules take precedence at any given time.  Which ones we prioritize and when and how consistently is called "character."


----------



## was (Jul 23, 2013)

I typically follow the rules.  Until the bureaucracy rears its draconic maw.  Then it's time to explore more 'creative' solutions.


----------



## diaglo (Jul 23, 2013)

rules as guidelines. that is how booklet I starts. and that is how we play.

someone asked me the other day why i pray. i won't go all religious in the answer. but it is a similar answer. i know He/She/It knows what is in my heart and my deeds or actions. and i know there are rote responses. but those are guidelines. those are the teachings of how to learn to do it. how i do it and why i do it are for me. just as how and why i game.

convincing others that i know what i am doing when i referee or play. well... i can only do my part and listen, teach, and game.


----------

