Experience Point: Screw the rules

I got a chance to see the new Star Trek movie and I really liked it. Don’t worry, I’m not going to put any spoilers in here so feel free to read on.

I’ll admit I’m not the biggest Trek fan out there. I watched a lot of the original as a kid (with a pretty uncritical eye) and have seen most or all of Next Generation. But I never watched much of the other spin-off series. So if you’re looking for somebody to be outraged about nitpicky things concerning the relaunch, you’ll have to find somebody else.

I liked the first film in the new series, and I liked this one even more. It’s taken a bit of processing but I’ve come to the conclusion that Kirk is a big reason why. I totally dig this version of Kirk. I absolutely love that he’s willing to break the rules when he sees them as getting in the way of what’s right. I won’t give examples (I said no spoilers!) but it’s a character trait that appeals to me personally.

It’s not that I’m a renegade who seeks to break every rule in the book. I’m really not. I’m a law abiding citizen. I wait my turn in the line at the grocery and the bank. When the sign says, “Lane ends in ½ mile,” I go ahead and merge over instead of speeding on ahead and trying to force my way in further up the line.

On the other hand, I think there should probably be a few less rules in the book. I see a lot in our society that feels needlessly over regulated. A lot of “zero tolerance” that ends with incredibly stupid results because somebody would rather have a firm rule than employ more common sense.

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.

This attitude definitely spills over into my gaming, both in terms of how I run games and play them. First, I’ve come to enjoy games with a few big rules instead of a lot of little ones. It’s easier to remember a smaller number of rules and easier to know when you’re about to break one. When a game has only a few rules, I tend to respect them more. It feels like they are there for better reasons.

My roleplaying often reflects this too. I’m MUCH more likely to play a Chaotic Neutral Rogue than a Lawful Good Paladin. That doesn’t mean I try to screw over the party or want chaos to reign supreme. Again, outcomes are more important to me than doing things the “proper” way. Hell, even the Paladins I’ve played have been more of the stripe who prefer a few big rules instead of a lot of small ones. I particularly roll my eyes at the idea that my Paladin must spare the life of some evil baddie because they might want to repent. That guy should have repented yesterday! He didn’t. That’s why I’m here with this sword.

My willingness to break the rules extends to the meta level, too. I respect a GM’s right to run the game the way he sees fit. I am not somebody who seeks to create problems at another GM’s gaming table. But when I’m running the game I will break a rule in a skinny minute if it means everybody has more fun. When the rule seems to be in the way of the fun I always think breaking it has fewer consequences than not breaking it.

I know not everybody is like this and that’s probably for the best. But I think most of the time when I’m bringing this attitude to somebody it’s because they could use a little dose of it. It crops up quite a bit in my coaching. I got to see an example of it today.

I spoke to a client who told me that he was stressed about trying to get some work done on a project for a friend. He had offered his help without really understanding he had neither the time nor the enthusiasm for the project. But it was a friend so he couldn’t say no. The implied social rules of this situation suggest failing to follow through is the wrong thing to do.

I told him that this was a great time to break the rules and tell his friend he was sorry but couldn’t help. After all, was he really even helping? He had already missed a deadline and was struggling to scrape together some time and ideas for this project. Is that really the sort of help his friend was looking for? He’d be doing his friend a favor by bowing out as soon as possible and letting him find somebody who had real passion for this project to take over that work.

It will have consequences for the friendship if he does this, although I have a decent grasp on the nature of this friendship and don’t think those consequences will be dire. But it will have consequences for the friendship if he does a half-assed job, too. I think he’s better off doing the former rather than the latter. Screw the rules.

When have you broken life’s rules to achieve a better outcome? Do you set aside the rules in your games when they feel like they are in the way?

 

[Janx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.