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?

 

[delericho]

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*.

What bothered me about that one was not so much that he was given command at the end (I was willing to assume Starfleet was basically devastated so needed officers badly), but rather how he came to be in command in the first place.

Basically, after doing what he did to Spock, and especially after his comments about Spock's planet and Spock's mother, it should have been utterly impossible for Kirk to take command of that ship - whether he was technically First Officer or not, that man would not have been able to command the loyalty of that crew.

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.

Apropos of nothing: my current campaign is due to wrap up after the next session after two and a bit years of play. The following Friday we're going out so that the players can buy me drinks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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?

First, I had the same reaction.

Thinking about it though, in a way it fits with the Trek vision of an idealized human society. The reason that someone like that would be thrown out is largely a question of accountability. CYA, if you will. If Pike lets him stay and he screws up, Pike will be held accountable. Thus, the impetus is for Pike to get rid of this potential liability.

There's also a subtle form of discrimination implicit here; the idea that age and tenure outweigh competence.

But instead, Kirk gets promoted. Because Pike believes he is the best leader available. Sure, he's a loose cannon, but he has the potential for greatness, so he gets his shot. Which leads me to two conclusions. First, this is closer to a pure meritocracy than any institution we have on this Earth. Second, Pike is an optimist. He'd rather believe that Kirk will become a transcendent leader than play it safe with some by-the-numbers bureaucrat in the captain's chair. And Roddenberry's vision is all about being optimistic about human nature.

So while his promotion is a push, something that feels very Hollywood, it also makes some sense in the context of Star Trek.

 

[Umbran]

If Pike lets him stay and he screws up, Pike will be held accountable. Thus, the impetus is for Pike to get rid of this potential liability.
...
Second, Pike is an optimist.

So, one moment he's covering his butt, but the next he's an optimist? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Nor do we see signs anywhere else that Starfleet normally exercises that sort of radical meritocracy. Kirk is clearly stated to be the youngest man ever to reach Captain in the history of the service - he is an exception, not an example of their general approach.

Sorry, Rel - but see, I'm breaking a social convention! This was supposed to be a thread about breaking rules, and instead it's turning into one about a several-years-old Star Trek movie!

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, one moment he's covering his butt, but the next he's an optimist? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I think you misread. If he ditches Kirk, he's covering himself. Since he didn't, he's an optimist.

Nor do we see signs anywhere else that Starfleet normally exercises that sort of radical meritocracy. Kirk is clearly stated to be the youngest man ever to reach Captain in the history of the service - he is an exception, not an example of their general approach.

Well, Uhura essentially gets promoted because she can understand the language of interest at the time, and then never leaves. Bones gets promoted because the doctor ahead of him is dead and never leaves (he's an experienced physician but not an officer at the time). So it seems like arbitrary promotions are the norm, in this movie. But it is quite a lot of dramatic conceit, I agree, to say that all of this happens at this one time and not at any other time.

 

[Umbran]

I think you misread. If he ditches Kirk, he's covering himself. Since he didn't, he's an optimist.

But, they were *going to* ditch him. He only failed to get ditched because they had to scramble to get cadets on ships.

Well, Uhura essentially gets promoted because she can understand the language of interest at the time, and then never leaves. Bones gets promoted because the doctor ahead of him is dead and never leaves (he's an experienced physician but not an officer at the time). So it seems like arbitrary promotions are the norm, in this movie. But it is quite a lot of dramatic conceit, I agree, to say that all of this happens at this one time and not at any other time.

Huh? I don't recall them stating any other real promotions in the first movie.

 

[Psikosis]

utilitarian approach

The philosophy of utilitarianism is pretty common in gaming, I think. The problem is that all of us have heuristics and biases that color all those utilitarian decisions. A few such judgments aren't so bad, but eventually favoritism and other negative biases will pile up for all to see. After all, we like some players more than others or expect a particular action to be taken and become frustrated when it things don't go as you planned. My experience is that it's usually not intentional (e.g., I'm going to kill your PC) nor it is an overt bias (e.g., I don't like gaming with gay people), but try telling that to the person(s) on the wrong end of it. Those are the unintended consequences in the quote below, and they can sink a game over the course of a few sessions.

Rules, in moderation, provide a backstop against at least some personal bias creep. They provide an objective framework for the GM and players to make decisions and interact. An occasional change to meet a special circumstance is fine, but the rules were designed to fit a particular style of play. If you are changing rules on the fly often, it may be that you need to find a different system.

I teach ethics to social services and medical students. In either profession, there may be marked latitude in judgment. It goes with the territory. Moreover, a certain degree of utilitarianism is required to navigate the labyrinthine bureaucracies doctors and social workers practice in. But studies of professionals' behaviors in these systems show biases become evident when they have significant latitude (e.g., assessment and diagnostic interpretation). It's a hazard of the utilitarian ethical approach.

I still lean towards utilitarianism, both as a gamer and a professional, but I've learned to be very mindful of the risks involved...

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



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.

 

[Rel]

This sort of excellent, thought provoking discussion is what keeps me writing this column every week. Thanks to all of you!

 

[Luce]

In my view one of the use of rules is so we have a shared common ground on which to base our decisions. Having coordinated mores and values is usually a good thing. However, the diversity of life can present mitigating circumstances. For example,(speaking hypothetically) running somebody over (repeatedly and on purpose) with a car is seldom justifiable. But if you just seen the said individual kill two policeman after they shot him in the head and he is headed into the occupied nursery school your child is attending may be justified in the eyes of both society and the law.
On the game front, I think many groups make the game their own. Again the individual circumstances and preference may clash but having a common starting point is good even if one's group chooses to deviate from it. Another example, when a fellow DM told me that he is giving its 7th group magic items intended for 15+ level parties my first thought was Monty Haul. After he elaborated that his campaign is intended to wrap up at 10th level and he will be throwing higher level monsters that started to sound not so bad. If memory serves there was supposed to be "prevent the end of the world" scenario. The PCs have 5 days (in game) to disturb a ritual that will merge their world with the negative energy plane or some such. They needed 3 macguffins, each located in different dungeon. The idea being to let the layers try some of the less seen high level stuff in a controlled environment and without the long term implication of magic overload. I see it no more different then giving your players an artifact for a special mission and not letting them keep it long term.
Now different people may have varying expectations how much the RAW is followed. Without a social contract (implicit or explicit) we start to get into rules and setting lawyers. Individuals often have an internalized definitions and expectations. If one runs a Forgotten Realms campaign, where the drow are NG, the mind flayers have managed to snuff the sun and the surviving members of the Harpers fight side my side with the Black network against the newly emerged abomination menace. Some players may give it a try and even end up enjoying the experience, while others will be frothing at the mouth at the mare suggestion.

 

[Psikosis]

snip"In my view one of the use of rules is so we have a shared common ground on which to base our decisions. Having coordinated mores and values is usually a good thing. However, the diversity of life can present mitigating circumstances. For example,(speaking hypothetically) running somebody over (repeatedly and on purpose) with a car is seldom justifiable. But if you just seen the said individual kill two policeman after they shot him in the head and he is headed into the occupied nursery school your child is attending may be justified in the eyes of both society and the law."snip

This statement illustrates my point. How often does the exception happen? Answer: not very. The rules of society apply virtually all the time because they apply to virtually every circumstance. Likewise, a system's rules should apply virtually all the time. Campaign settings are a completely different story, of course. As long the players are interested and enjoying it, the GM can take a canned setting and bend it however s/he wishes. The group makes it their own, as Luce says. But setting and system are independent of each, and each should be treated differently.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When have you broken life’s rules to achieve a better outcome?

Damn, that's a good question!

I have broken society's rules more than once, almost always for selfish reasons. For example, I routinely speed on the highway- sometimes by a LOT. When I was a littke kid, I did shoplift a few times (I eventually got caught and stopped- I saw how much it hurt my parents).

Arguably, none of the results of that rulebreaking resulted in an objectively better outcome.

When it comes to life's rules, I have never seen them as black and white.* I can turn down a friend's request for a favor and not lose a moment of sleep...but I usually don't. When I do, it is for a good reason.

I think part of that is that, as I've aged, I have become more constantly and consistently aware of my situation at any given time.

A dear cousin of mine asked me to help him out. It seemed like a hotel where he rented a room for a social event had decided not to do so when he showed up. So I dropped everything and tried to untangle the mess.

And it was messy. Suffice to say, there was a miscommunication between my cousin and the hotel, largely because of their website & automated booking process. I could, however, have smoothed it all out in minutes by putting my credit card down and signing a piece of paper.

I didn't.

Instead, we helped him find another hotel in the area that would accept his reservation without the need for my very legal and binding assurances. And a good time was had by him and his guests.

If we had not been able to find that other hotel, he'd have been S.O.L.







* or, more accurately, not all of life's rules are created equal. It is each person's task of the moment to evaluate which rules take precedence at any given time. Which ones we prioritize and when and how consistently is called "character."