Majoru Oakheart, the problem appears to me essentially the same when people disagree with what's in a book. To take your jumping example, my memory suggests that the rule was changed in 3.5 to be simpler and (by the sort of assessment you mention) less accurate. The big difference is that if you put your trust in fellow players then you can change the rule a lot more easily than if you must convince someone at Corporate HQ to print up a new book.
That is, if you assume they are wrong. Our group jointly agreed that unless a rule was so completely out there that not a single one of us could see using it, then we'd use it as written. After all, the rules described a fantasy universe that was nothing like ours. If this universe had people jumping 30 feet on a regular basis and falling 200 feet without dying....well, then that's the way the world would work. Rules would be changed for balance reasons, but not for "common sense" reasons.
This was a new concept to us. In our 2e game, the philosophy was "We are attempting to model the way these things work in real life. If a rule doesn't model that correctly, let's fix it and use a house rule instead." We spent most of our time gaming discussing the validity of one rule or another. I'd say we came into conflict with the rules(or lack thereof) about 3-4 times per session.
Having a lot of rules solved most of the really long rules disputes. It started new ones. But most of them were resolved fairly quickly. Instead of arguing things like "Can I jump that far?" or "Is it possible to get enough leverage to lift that rock?" we instead argued "Can I 5-ft step into difficult terrain?" and "If I have this spell up can I still be bullrushed?". Most of these issues were solved by looking things up in the book. Which we did quite frequently...but we were used to it, so no big deal. At least it only took 5 minutes each time. It wasn't like the 2 or 3 hour arguments we used to have about whether it was possible to grapple a fire giant or whether you could breathe in the elemental plane of fire when you were protected with Protection from Fire.
In 4e, we've managed to minimize our arguments even further. Now we have maybe one rules dispute a session. It is still of the same nature as the ones we'd have in 3e. Most of them don't need to be looked up, however, since they are issues the rules don't cover. The DM makes a quick ruling and we move on. Most people are willing to accept "Blast 3 powers go 3 squares up, even though the rules don't say so" as a ruling. However, the rules interactions are smoother and don't rub up against each other as often as 3e.
I think the reason people are willing to accept the rulings with less arguments is because they aren't over "philosophic" issues. For some reason people get REALLY passionate about being about to jump an extra 5 ft. They aren't so hung up over whether this power gets to push 1 or 2. Probably because the rules discussions are firmly within the framework of the rules instead of arguing real life.
The basic circumstance of people being so niggling and fractious in the first place is what is so strikingly strange to me. With such a foundation, piling up rules seems likely to bog down the game in even more rules-lawyering, calling for even more rules to close loopholes, and so on in a vicious cycle.
It doesn't, for the reasons I describe above. We find it much easier to play a game than try to simulate reality. The game says we get a +2 to Diplomacy for being a Half-Elf for being "between worlds"....we accept that we get the bonus. Even though an argument can be made that being shunned by 2 different cultures makes you less social and not as good at interacting with people.
But we switched mindsets. The rules are now correct. No matter how wrong they are. Mostly because we were tired of arguing with each other about what the Truth was.
This is to my mind a problem of social skills -- not the numbers on a character sheet but the ability of the player to carry on relationships with real people in the real world. It is essential to playing any game, but the nature of an RPG makes it even more important.
I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case. It comes mainly from a difference backgrounds and assumptions than it does from the social skills of the people involved.
Our biggest arguments always stemmed from this:
-Can you push someone over if they weigh twice as much as you?
-If you poke someone in the eye does that blind them permanently?
-How easy it is to prevent someone from poking you in the eye?
-Does it make sense to use an attack roll a strength check or a dex check to resolve grapple checks?
And we always had wildly differing opinions on such things. Someone would say: "Look, I'll poke you in the eye right now and you try to block it. I bet you can't do it!"
In fact, one of the first arguments we had in 3e before we all decided to just go with the rules regardless of whether we agreed with them was one on Flatfoodedness. Our DM couldn't fathom that anyone would ever stand there and NOT dodge an attack coming at them simply because they hadn't acted yet. Especially considering a round was 6 seconds long. No one stands around for 3 seconds completely surprised and he wasn't going to allow it. No way, no how. This caused the player being the rogue in the group to drop Improved Initiative immediately. Then switch characters a session later when he realized how badly it effected him.
We could cut it right back to being just another board game with nothing permitted but what is perfectly described in the cut-and-dried rules -- and the problem players would still be a problem.
I doubt it. I've played board games with these people whenever not enough people showed for a session. We never argued about board game rules. It was the suggestion that the rules modeled reality that caused all the problems. No one expected a board game to model reality.
