Rule-making in Victoria MP
As I read the threads of past and present MP games, I am increasingly struck by the problems players have concerning house rules, the ones groups make to regulate the game. No other facet of play causes so many groups to break up, so many furious public accusations of bad faith, and so many "I'll never play with you again" posts. Recently, I made the foolish mistake of joining a group with incomplete and fixed rules, a group which now struggles to carry on after the departure of its most important player: the guy who hosted all their games.
Given my past experience in tabletop gaming with diverse personalities, I really should have asked more questions. The two most important ones being "Who's in charge, or is this a pure democracy?" and "What methods exist for changing rules throughout the game?"
Opinions on rule-making vary widely. A large number of people hold to the following views: "Rules should be kept to a minimum and certainly should not be changed in-game", "no player should adjust his play style to suit others", and "a binding system of group decision-making is not necessary". We will consider each of these opinions in turn.
----------------------
"Rules should be kept to a minimum. Rules should not be changed in-game."
- There are many games that require few house rules. Tetris, Checkers, even Chess are all well-polished, stable games with most or all of their rules cleaned up and made obvious through innate simplicity or the passage of time.
- There is another class of game. Whether through innate complexity, potential of the existing rules for abuse, or simple lack of polish, some games require the players to actively make decisions about gameplay throughout the course of play. I often play an Avalon Hill board game called "Kingmaker". Its printed rules are slightly vague, capable of being mis-interpreted, and in a few cases capable of abuse. Because the weak patches are non-obvious at game start, the problems will normally not be realized until somebody trips on them. The group then has to discuss how to handle the case. Word of advice: Do not play "Kingmaker" with people who think rules must be perfected beforehand.
- "Victoria, an Empire under the Sun" is an order of magnitude more complex, and its equivalent of rules (its game engine) even more susceptible to error and abuse. No player group has come even close to adequately addressing its rule problems before the game. Time and again, when the issue is tripped over (such as shore bombardments rendering a capital city defenceless), the players divide into two camps: the "let's solve the problem now that we realize it" camp and the "rule changes must not be made in-game" camp. The argument between the two grows furious, and the group often splits up.
- The "rule changes must not be made in-game" camp is mistaken in the context of a complex, legally vague, highly abusable game such as Victoria. They either expect the impossible - rules should be perfectly clarified beforehand (as though Vikky were another Checkers), or the absurd - players should attack abusers in-game (as though arm-wrestling determined justice). The fact that this group's loudest members not infrequently profit from the abuse, and often control the nations best positioned to arm-wrestle in-game is a fact well-noted and often remarked upon.
--------------------------
"No player should adjust his play style to suit others"
- We all quite naturally want good reasons given before we surrender any portion of our freedom of action. We also, however, recognize that the actions and play styles of others deeply affect us, that we can neither be autonomous - alone in the game, with all the other players acting like the AI - nor be in perfect control, capable of forcing all other players to play in ways that perfectly satisfy us. In order to preserve our freedom, we must also preserve that of others. To get some of what we want, we must accept that others will get some of what they want.
- But, believe it or not, not every player really believes in mutual accommodation. Some of those who defend their own play style most vehemently are the very ones who are most willing to make rules, issue public announcements, and play in-game in ways that limit and constrain other players' play styles. These sorts of people desire perfect freedom for themselves, and perfect control over others. Needless to say, this attitude drives off other players very quickly indeed.
- If we want to play SP, a "My freedom trumps yours" attitude works great. The AI is always agreeable, has no pride or self-worth, claims no rights, and never argues. In MP, however, play styles and attitudes must be mutually compromised.
--------------------------
"A binding system of group decision-making is not necessary"
"Raise your hand if you like accepting annoying decisions!" No takers? "Okay, raise your hand if you want other players to accept your views!" A little more appealing, eh? And this little contrasts brings us to group decision-making, the ways in which gaming groups harmonize divergent views to keep the game going.
- The easiest system is that of "enlightened monarchy". A well-respected player gets support for his right to set up, modify, and enforce rules, and all other players accept the occasional mistake and annoyance as long as the "rule-maker" is scrupulously unbiased and usually correct. Sometimes, the "rule-maker" is set up by popular vote and can be removed if any other player gets more support; this adds accountability. Not infrequently, the "rule-maker" can expel players after a shorter or longer warning process.
- Pure democracy is also popular, but is not so simple. Whereas a "king" can flexibly issue edits covering particular problems of governance or of group concord (including just tossing out particularly annoying people), a democracy has to first set up a simple set of "rules-covering-rulemaking" - a constitution - and then hold votes on all rule-making allowed by the constitution. Problems - major problems - arise if the constitution doesn't cover a point players feel strongly about. Nevertheless, democracy is the best way to handle a group full of people who don't know each other, or who agree on no natural leader, as - suitably warned beforehand - most players will accept an annoying decision as long as 1) the majority supported it and 2) that can be reversed at any time if he can get a majority to oppose it (this second point is important).
- Most Vikky MP groups, unfortunately, use neither accountable monarchy or rule-governed democracy. Frequently, one or two players start up a group, and attempt to play "king" without full consultation with all players and without accountability, or a false-democracy is operated with no requirement for any player to accept any majority decision, or chance to reverse it later. When a tough, important matter is argued, this lack of pre-established legitimacy often causes groups to fall apart.
---------------
Lessons I should have learned previously:
- Beware of those who ever say that rules must not be changed in-game. This is possibly the number-one guarantee that your gameplay experience with this person will not be a happy one.
- Beware of players who simultaneously demand that others respect their way of playing and who attempt to regulate/control the gameplay of others. Such a person sees you as an AI, not a fellow human.
- Beware of players who play "king" without having gotten all players to accept them, or who, as "king", play aggressively and at the limits of the rules in-game, or who make sweetheart deals with anyone before the game begins, or who is not prepared to modify their power and even step down if any other players consider them a public nuisance.
- Beware of democracies that either have no constitutions, or that consider all decisions, once made, as in any way fixed and final. Such systems treat new players very badly.
