Thornir Alekeg said:
The general non-competetive nature of RPGs (obviously not in all cases) reduces the need for rules to be enacted evenly across all game tables.
Even if D&D somehow became a spectator pasttime, would people really care if the Defenders of Daybreak have to deal with differing rules interpretations at Piratecat's table than the players in El-Remmen's Aquerra campaign?
Thorn, let's assume that for whatever reason, the competitive variety of RPG is the one that dominates at the level of play involving spectators. (Since all or nearly all spectator sports, even minor ones, are competitive, this is probably not an unfair assumption.) Does it matter if NCAA college basketball has different rules than those of the NBA? Does it matter if California's high school league has a different set of rules than those of Florida's high school league? To many fans, those questions have a simple answer: yes. Why? because something is at stake that's enough to make them care, otherwise it wouldn't be the case that fans have such distinct preferences for one league over the other. The AL and NL of the MLB have different rulesets, and one of the most prominent rules differences is and has been a question for 25 years, and it still comes up and is hotly debated in some circles. You might have heard of this rules difference: the Designated Hitter rule. The argument isn't noted as much in the media now, but there's even been scholarly research done as to whether or not the Designated Hitter rule improves the quality of pitching, and I believe that research has also been done one whether or not it has an effect on a pitcher's career length or number of injuries. So if the Defenders of Daybreak are in a league where money is at stake, I wouldn't find it at all unreasonable for them to want to know what any possible differences in judging would be and what effects they are likely to have.
RFisher said:
Exactly. The non-rule-lawyers would have to start caring enough about playing the game on the terms of the rule-lawyers that they hire their own rule-lawyers to help them out.
But, instead, the rule-lawyer either learns to concede to the point-of-view of the non-rule-lawyers enough or leaves.
OK, assume you make your living as an RPG player. You're in a major tournament, and 1 million bucks and a big trophy is your top prize, while second prize is a small trophy and maybe a few words at the awards ceremony. But your GM is Joe Schmo from Whoknowswhere. You have no clue what level of rules knowledge he has prior to starting the game, but you begin play, and you end up "heads up" against the one other player left in the tournament. At some point, the contest comes down to a single event, and depending on how it's ruled, you either go home with the million, or you go home via the bus in the poorhouse. The rules, as written, support you winning clearly (we're not talking interpretation, we are assuming that Joe simply doesn't remember a line of text which is infrequently referred to but not so rarely that most players wouldn't know it.) but Joe rules otherwise. You're walking away with nothing. And you have no recourse.
Wouldn't you then call for the sponsors of the tourney to find a judge who is certified that he knows what the heck he's doing? He would be required to memorize the rulebook, so he's not likely to make that mistake too often, else the judge would lose HIS job, and you'd still probably walk away with the million once the mistake was corrected. I'd imagine so, because that's the point I'm trying to make: when enough money is on the line (enough money that it would make a significant difference on a day to day level, and not just a random 5 dollar bar bet that just means you get to buy another fast-food hamburger) everyone will become rules lawyers. At a certain level of significance in terms of stuff on the line, if you're NOT the rule lawyer, you will be the one forced out, more than likely, because the rules lawyers (aka the people with stuff on the line) need to know that you as a judge will be consistent, fair, and make the same ruling as any of the the other judges. I'd bet you almost all of the players in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and the NHL, as well as the English Premiership and other major soccer/football leagues around would tell you that they wouldn't accept non-professional judges for their pro games, because for them, rulings can make millions of dollars of difference.
That's kinda why lawyers developed, after all; if you have nothing on the line, you have no need to pay someone to specialize in interpreting agreements and the law. If you have enough on the line, paying someone to help interpret it is probably less costly in the long run, because if you get a significantly different answer with every answer, your opponent will attempt to find the judges most likely to go to their own side. And if they succeed, you're screwed.
So I don't think talking about the need for consistent rulings among home games is the same as talking about the need for consistent rulings when something significant (money, fame, at some level city/team/school pride) is at stake. It can't be; home games work on the assumption fun is more important than rule correctness because being too jerkish hurts relationships and relationships are important. Pro games work on the assumption that rule correctness is more important than fun because money is on the line and friendship largely isn't, because most players won't be close friends or family with one another so any relationships will be professional.
