Blackcloud’s second lament: Optional Rules, House Rules, and Rules Creep.

[Blackcloud6]

This was going to be part of a reply on the smoke rule thread, but I decided to make it a whole new thread.  Here goes, have fun…

I don’t like optional rules, house rules nor rules creep.  Let me tell you why: they point to weak or indecisive design.  Furthermore, in a scenario-based game system, like PG, when invoking an optional rule, one does not know if it is going to unbalance the scenario.  Did the scenario designer test his scenario using the rule?  I doubt it.   And we all know that the conventional wisdom of PG players, is that PG scenarios seem to be under-tested, so that means it is highly unlikely that the optional rule(s) was tested in the scenario.

Frankly, I feel that players who want optional rules invoked are doing so because doing so is to their advantage.  It’s like saying, “hey, let’s play baseball with little league bases distances,” because he can only sprint 60 feet.   If optional rules are desired, then there needs to be a bidding on the victory conditions in some manner, to compensate for invoking a rule that might advantage a side over the other.

I do think that having many optional rules point to a weak or indecisive design.  I say: “Mr. Designer, do your work and give me the game you want me to play.”  I don’t want a smorgasbord of rules that may be used one day with one opponent and different set with the next.”  This screws up my “doctrines” on how I play the game, and importantly, stive to replicate the historical fight consistently.

In a “System Game” like PG, optional rules should only be for scenario designers to invoke in specific scenarios to help recreate that historical event and not for players to willy nilly evoke to gain advantage or to sooth their (mis)perception of the event or tactics of the day.  The optionals should be a tool box for good scenario design.  The “Extended Assault” rule is a good example of this.  It should only be used in a scenario where the mechanized infantry of side was training in assaulting directly from their carrier.  And most armies in WWII did not do so, their doctrines were to drive to a covered and concealed position and dismount, and attack on foot.   The carriers would stay hidden (they are valuable for their mobility, not lethality) unless they could support by fire against an enemy that dd not have AT weapons that could reach them.  So, Extended Assault should only be used in scenarios where the designers know the force did so and/or were trained to do so.

I detest House Rules.  I find that house rules usually are a result of misperception of rules intent, or the “Hollywood” perception of what is actually occurring on the battlefield, or inability or unwillingness to play well with the rules as written.  They become a crutch.    If the rules are truly broken, toss the dang game; there are so many good games out there, why bang your head on the wall of a poorly designed game?  Life is too short.   The only house rules I accept are procedural ones, like, “don’t put your open coke next to the game map.”

Rules creep ruin games, especially series games.  It drives me nuts that when you learn a game and the next one in the series comes out and has radical changes.   Victory Games’ Fleet series is the great example of this, every follow-on game changed the system the change did not aways retro fit.  Panzer Leader did the same thing to PanzerBlitz and many were grudge changes or misunderstandings of the original designer's intent.  Fortunately, PG stayed somewhat firm over 20 years by gradual changes, although the 4[sup]th[/sup] Edition did bring some major changes, but for the most part, the game stayed much the same in the macro level and this the older scenarios adapt well to the 4[sup]th[/sup] Editions.  But there were some curious things, like the 2/3 movement costs.  Optional Rules, and more so, House Rules, are the bitches that bear the demons of rules creep; so be careful out there.