Interpreting the Rules

[Spike]

As a break from the lastest bout of 'Piracy good/bad?', I thought I'd submit this little nugget of thought.

Elsewhere I am/was involved with a debate over a point of rules.  My 'opponent' has every weapon in his arsenal. I submit that he is possibly smarter than I am, and is undoubtedly better educated. He is far more passionate about the game, and can even summon the power of authority on his behalf.

By all rights, I should lose. Perhaps I will, I for one can conceed defeat when out maneuvered. But I am not, strangely, being shot down.  I think I know why. Its not mercy.

Therein lies my thought.  When reading a rule book, as we all do 'round these parts, one occasionally has to interpret rules. Sometimes we forget that other people read stuff differently and we argue.   If you are like me, you look forward to the occasional heated debate.

There are really only two ways to go about arguing rules that I can think of.

One is to site examples of actual text that support your case.

The other is to argue the lack of examples that disprove your case (or, by lack, support it).

Sadly, I am unable to parse the second one properly. It's more involved than that, more complex, but it does boil down to abscenses and negative evidence.  

Most of the time a good debate involves using both. The second one sounds inherently weaker, but it has value.  In some rules sets it is the only real way to argue, but thats not really the topic I suppose.

Here is the thing: I found myself, being obviously out of my depth and outclassed, doing what I too rarely do in such arguements. I pulled out the book to research the topic.  I was rather appalled, retroactively, at the sorry state of the rules in question (This was, at one time, going to be a theory/craft thread....), and also by the utter simplicity of the case.  

In short, by referenceing and quoting the actual text of the book, I force my opponent to counter with the same. Since his previous arguements were based more on a lack of contra-evidence, I seem to have put him in a bind. perhaps temporarily, perhaps not.  Regardless on wether or not he puts this admitted No0b in his place, I have come to realize a simple fact, a moral to the story if you will:

I don't like rules arguments at the table, nor do I like being the only geek who reads things differently than everyone else.  Thus I realize that the best way to handle such arguements, if a simple fiat from the GM is not good enough (and often it is not...) is the very very simple expient of actually looking at the rule itself.

I don't mean just 'look it up, stupid'.. that is hardly worthy insight for a thread.

No.

I mean just this: what do the words actually say.  If you have to 'read into' them, if you have to interpret from scance evidence, then no matter how right you might actually be, your working too hard on your case. If you can not, in the matter of a few moments, find at least one simple sentance that 'proves' your case, let it drop.  You can not read a rule by saying 'but it doesn't say THIS'... you can only read it by 'It says this'.  The negative interpretation is just too damned involved.

The corrollary is for game writers: Don't make it a habit to write your rules so they can only be read by lack.  Dunno how to make that clearer....

[James McMurray]

Is there a question in this, or a point of discussion you'd like to start? What I'm seeing right now makes me think "yeah, you have to look at a rule to argue it. That seems pretty straightforward."

[Kyle Aaron]

Well, the problem is this: no bunch of rules can cover every possible situation. The "lack", as you call it, will always be there. 576 pages of GURPS rules don't cover everything, so I don't see how shorter rulesets can do so, unless the game is of very narrow scope.

So if the "lack" is always there, what then? Then GM fiat, and player arguments.

Certainly many game books, especially those in the quickly-published crowd (Mongoose, most pdf rpgs, etc) could do with more proofreading and some playtesting to deal with the obvious blanks and vagueness. But something will always come up, no matter what. The imagination of 1 or 3 writers will never match that of 100 or 300 or 10,000 players, let alone 100,000 or more players for some more popular game. They're always going to come up with something the writer didn't, something which would never have occurred to them.

Thus GM fiat and player arguments.

Now, I would say that in most cases, either the group likes rules arguments or they don't. For those who like them, okay that's what they should do. For those who don't, then you need GM fiat during the game session just to keep things moving, and perhaps you can discuss the situation between sessions, clarify the situation and rule if you think it'll come up again.

If the GM's decisions are consistently bad then you need a new GM. If they're consistently good then the GM fiat over "lacks" works just fine.

The GM just has to judge stuff. That's the way it's always been, and always will be. A century of cricket, football, etc have no removed the need for referees making decisions based on comon sense and reason, why would thirty years of rpg writing done it?

[Spike]

I want to describe the debate, to frame my perspective more clearly, but I would rather keep this away from that sort of thing (you know, I'm right,a nd I'm gonna tell everyone I'm right over here, rather than over there....that sort of thing).

I agree that GM's are supposed to look at such debates and make judgement calls.  Thats one reason I don't really get behind RPG's that write the GM out of the game, though a minor one.

The idea, and I KNOW I'm struggling to communicate here and now, is that all too often we get wrapped up in 'knowing' something that we forget that other people don't always get the same feel we do from a text.  And sometimes, when you turn to the text to support an arguement, you might just find it didn't say what you thought it said. It probably doesn't directly contradict it either, but then you start searching and searching for that elusive statement you Just Know it had to have said at some point to prove your case.

I've done it a thousand times (hyperbole), I know. It is a bit unusual for me, however, to be on the other side of the equation... which lead me to thinking about it.  I came into the debate with very little concrete knowledge and only a fairly firm idea of how the rules in question interacted.  Much of my actual arguement was, by default, made by actually reading the rules themselves.

The counter arguements tend to be more of the nature of 'but I don't think it means that... in this case' without any reason... or rather, evidence, for that to be so.


Bog knows I am not interested in pursuing a debate over it here, since its on going I am reluctant to use examples.  Its rather the idea, not that rules don't need interpreting, but that the simplest, even childish, reading of the rules is arguably the best way of taking them... in any case... to avoid long esoteric debates at the table.

But maybe I should let it go. I am obviously barely able to string my thoughts together coherently here, which is damned frustrating since I know what I am TRYING to say, and I am equally aware of just how badly I am mangling it.

[Skyrock]

If there're any ambiguities, we try to solve them together (as long as there isn't a clear gap in regards of actual knowledge, like when only the GM has read the rules and the rest got them only teached orally.) If the discussion drags, the GM decides temporarily a solution for the session. We try then between the sessions to find a more permanent solution collaboratively, and if it can't be cleared up by then... well, then we finally enter GM fiat land for the whole sake of practicability. This happens rarely however, as most of our players tend to hold back after sufficient forth and back and agree on the most determined side.

Well, the problem is this: no bunch of rules can cover every possible situation. The "lack", as you call it, will always be there. 576 pages of GURPS rules don't cover everything, so I don't see how shorter rulesets can do so, unless the game is of very narrow scope.

I can think of a few as Risus, Wushu and The Pool that cover everything. However, they're pretty minimal one-trick systems that solve the problem with an extra-broad equalizer mace. For games with more inherent long-time motivation, we're probably stuck with the incompleteness problem permanently.

[Kyle Aaron]

I can think of a few as Risus, Wushu and The Pool that cover everything. However, they're pretty minimal one-trick systems that solve the problem with an extra-broad equalizer mace.

It would be more correct to say they cover everything by covering nothing, it's all up to GM judgment. It's a very high level of abstraction. In Risus there are effectively only two abilities: Ability That Covers It, Ability That Doesn't. Whether any particular cliche is the first or the second is up to GM judgment - see, we can't escape it, lighter rules only make it worse!

[The Yann Waters]

It would be more correct to say they cover everything by covering nothing, it's all up to GM judgment.

Hmm. How about the Aspect attribute in Nobilis, then? After all, it covers everything that an ordinary human being could possibly attempt, no matter whether those actions are physical, mental or social...