Spirit of the rules
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:11 pm
"The spirit of the rules" (SOTR) has been mentioned several times recently, usually in the context of one of the design team replying to the discovery of potential cheese by playtesters. The implication being that the cheese is contrary to the SOTR and therefore a change in the rules to address it is not necessary.
I find this disturbing.
The rules should be written to the highest standards, and glitches that are discovered in this pre-publication stage can and should be addressed. Phil Barker, bless him, attacks "competition gamers" as the source of all evil. Everone else quietly admits that they help make a set of rules better by discovering loopholes and unintended consequences. It is all well and good to say something like "I would never allow that in an event that I umpired" but if the letter of the rules allows it to be played that way . . . .
It has been mentioned that one goal of the designers is to make the game accessible to newbies, and that too much cheese-cleaning will somehow reduce accessibility. This is a grand and glorious goal. Cleaning up the rules will make them more, not less, accessible to newbies. Imagine the new guy who read the rule book and enjoyed the game he played with his chum; then he decides to go to his first tournament, where he finds that everyone else is playing based on a errata sheet that he did not know to download. Or perhaps someone drops a piece of cheese on him and he looks it up in the rulebook only to discover that--the way the rules are written--the cheese appears to be legal. Later, he tries to play it the same way, only have the umpire slap him upside his head for cheesiness.
I hope this commentary is taken in the light it is intended; that is, as a constructive criticism. I like FoG so far, and want it to be good enough to replace DBM as the international tournament standard. Cheese, by its nature, can never be removed entirely; but everyone--players and publishers alike--will benefit if the rules are as tight as can be from the get go.
Marc
I find this disturbing.
The rules should be written to the highest standards, and glitches that are discovered in this pre-publication stage can and should be addressed. Phil Barker, bless him, attacks "competition gamers" as the source of all evil. Everone else quietly admits that they help make a set of rules better by discovering loopholes and unintended consequences. It is all well and good to say something like "I would never allow that in an event that I umpired" but if the letter of the rules allows it to be played that way . . . .
It has been mentioned that one goal of the designers is to make the game accessible to newbies, and that too much cheese-cleaning will somehow reduce accessibility. This is a grand and glorious goal. Cleaning up the rules will make them more, not less, accessible to newbies. Imagine the new guy who read the rule book and enjoyed the game he played with his chum; then he decides to go to his first tournament, where he finds that everyone else is playing based on a errata sheet that he did not know to download. Or perhaps someone drops a piece of cheese on him and he looks it up in the rulebook only to discover that--the way the rules are written--the cheese appears to be legal. Later, he tries to play it the same way, only have the umpire slap him upside his head for cheesiness.
I hope this commentary is taken in the light it is intended; that is, as a constructive criticism. I like FoG so far, and want it to be good enough to replace DBM as the international tournament standard. Cheese, by its nature, can never be removed entirely; but everyone--players and publishers alike--will benefit if the rules are as tight as can be from the get go.
Marc