Article:
House Rules: Insert Hugh Laurie/Dance Music Gag Here
The article I’m here to write has been directed towards the ‘elephant in the room’ topic of House Rules, and my feelings on such. In our brief, the release of the 6th Edition of Warhammer 40,000 was cited as a possible basis for the article - but my views on this abysmal product are well-enough known that I don’t wish to rake over those coals. If you wish, see my blog for more detailed commentary, although I warn you that I have more desire to blog about sexism in gaming than 6th at present...and when I didn’t jump on that bandwagon to generate hits when it did the rounds lately, doing it now would be wholly illogical.
Right, two paragraphs before a conclusion is long enough. Here’s the thing. When it comes to rules, and their integrity, I’m a purist. I make no defence for any specific company or system (*cough*) or claims of infallibility or even base competence here - but I firmly believe that the Rules As Written are the ONLY valid way to play the game with strangers.
When I say ‘play with strangers’ of course, I don’t even refer to Tournament games to the same extent as Pick-Up games, though given my preferred subject matter and doubtless reputation, that would be an understandable mistake to make. When you meet a player for the first time, and assume that they are comfortable playing against your Imperial Armour rules model, or with you using the 2nd Edition Psychic Powers system instead of the standard, or using 4th Edition Wound Allocation, or WHATEVER changes you’ve made to the core ruleset, however trivial seeming, you are being incredibly presumptuous, and indeed rude.
I have something of an issue sometimes (as I’ve mentioned before) wherein I ‘get’ something to an extent it becomes difficult for me to rationally explain, as I literally cannot comprehend where the confusion lies for the other party - I do not know how they don’t understand what I’m saying as it comes so easily to me. This is not an uncommon phenomena in situations with more cloistered playing groups, where rules have been discussed, debated, and distorted to a point where any of the regular participants have almost lost their understanding that the actual rules printed in the book aren’t the ones they use, so ingrained are the edits.
Naturally, it’s somewhat early in the lifespan of 6e for you to think that has occurred, but I say not so. With a game like 40k, steeped in tradition, often cosmetic edits, and where players are more often taught by doing rather than reading, problems tend to amplify over time, and are not simply scrubbed away by the new edition.
For a good and terrible example of this, just look around at the furore half-way through 5th Edition 40k (and, alas, in some less enlightened places, even later!) surrounding Chaos Dreadnoughts and Fire Frenzy results.
To anyone approaching the game from a TCG perspective (or simply with logic) it was apparent that Dreadnoughts are Walkers, Walkers are Vehicles, and thus they do not follow the Infantry rules for Line of Sight. Since you may only choose a Target if it is in LoS, Dreadnoughts didn’t spin backwards to present like a dog on heat to the enemy’s firepower.
Yet, despite the blindingly obvious nature of this when laid out coherently and clearly, most players had house rule’d that they DID do so, inadvertently, because they didn’t realise that they were Doing It Wrong.
It’s entirely valid, under normal circumstances, to say that house rules are NOT wrong - in fact, it’s more correct than for me to say the opposite. However, in situations such as this, where the modification is accidental rather than designed, it IS wrong. House Rules are a device by which a closed group of players can derive more enjoyment from a game by making it better fit their expectations and desires...if they want a narrative to be forged, they can set the terrain up to reflect a specific goal or scenario. If they wish for a smoother, faster experience, they can resort to simply removing Look Out Sir, Challenges, Deny the Witch, and the random Psychic Powers. If they want a more competitively evaluative time, they can remove Mysterious Objectives, restrict the number or type of Fortifications further, and modify or remove the Warlord Traits.
Whatever way you choose to change the game, within the confines of your group of regular opponents, is absolutely fine and great, ideal, even, if it improves your gaming experience - as long as you realise that, as the Rock so famously informed us, It Doesn’t Matter.
Players from outside your circle will not instinctively recognise, nor adapt to, your changes - and therefore House Rules are detrimental to your ability to meet new people on an even keel - which means you’re struggling to play the game as ‘intended’ (assuming competence on the part of the writers, of course...) and this in turn leads to an increasingly insular group of your players, unable to adapt back to the original ruleset well enough to welcome new blood, slowly diminishing and fading into the West. Is this an exaggerated version of events? To some extent, yes - but the fact is that it’s a logical progression of extensive house ruling.
House Rules, in of themselves, are a tool - and a very good one - for improving the quality of gaming within a select group. Assuming everyone else will like, understand and/or agree with your changes is where things fall down - and with Wargamers being such a spoiled, entitled, self-righteous lot, it’s a much safer bet that your version of the rules will meet more opposition than it garners support. Rein in your arrogance, please, and try to keep your house rules to your campaigns, narrative gaming, and basements.
Just so this doesn’t look like an ‘us vs them’ article, here’s a couple of facts or whatevs. I’ve used house rules, and indeed potentially had more fun doing so. I’ve played, and run, narrative games including campaigns. Some of the most fun I’ve had in games was in a decidedly uncompetitive fashion, such as Apocalypse, and I’ve literally spent hundreds of hours writing rules, codexes and indeed entire game systems of my own. I completely understand the inherent value of these things, and have no shame in saying I will in fact play using house rules again in the future.
None of these things change the fact that game systems SHOULD be designed for inclusivity, and made so that house ruling should be additions, not reductive in scope. Players should never be made to feel that things should be removed or replaced to make it closer to their ambitions and interpretation of fun - that leads to misunderstanding, to disagreement, and to segregation within the Hobby. They are called House Rules, because they are how you play ‘at home’ - but a game against a new player should always be on their terms, not exclusionary, and they aren’t simply called ‘variants’ or ‘the rules’ because they should be the EXCEPTION, not the norm.
Thanks for reading, I’ve been TKE, and this has been both difficult and exhausting.
No comments:
Post a Comment