Written by Michael P. Owen
owenmp@hotmail.com
Web Posted December 24, 1998
Updated August 05, 2000
Playing the Game, or Playing the Rules? Second Sight: Comments from the Editor. Pyramid Magazine. Issue 23. Steve Jackson Games. January/February 1997. p.6.
Internet newsgroups can be a funny thing. An individual group can go for months with little or no traffic, and then suddenly become a hotbed for debate and discussion. So it has been with <io.games.sjg.carwars>, the Illuminati Online-hosted newsgroup for discussion of (obviously) Car Wars. No traffic, no messages, no interest, for months on end. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
But then, things sprang to life. Somebody posted a message about the
game's speed modifiers system, the bonuses (or more likely, penalties)
assessed to your shot at a moving target based on its speed and direction
of travel in relation to you. I'm not sure anything got settled except
that in certain situations, the rules don't reflect reality very well --
what exactly to do about it remained a matter of debate. But the discussion
(which ran well over 150 messages, and continues as I write this) spawned
a number of tangents, disagreements (which are polite arguments), arguments
(which are impolite disagreements) and the occasional spurt of flame. Finally,
a Colorado college student (if his signature is to be believed) named Robert
F. Deis (if that is his real name -- you know how these Internet junkies
are . . . ), finally posted the following:
What's so wrong with that?
Rules lawyers, in the best definition I can come up with, seek loopholes and ambiguities to twist the game to their advantage, when those loopholes and ambiguities have nothing to do with the contest the game is simulating. They're not playing the game; they're playing the rules.
And if a rules lawyer can't find a loophole, he'll invent one. You can show 100 gamers a sentence in a rulebook, and 99 of them will agree it means one particular thing -- but the rules lawyer will argue that some obscure grammatical construction means that it could be interpreted another way, despite what the other 99 say, and especially if their interpretation helps them in the game situation at hand. (Another sign of a rules lawyer is his or her ability to argue the exact opposite side of the same rules question in a later game if the circumstances change and they need the rule to go the other way to win.)
This need to win is one sure mark of a rules lawyer; many of them don't necessarily like playing loopholes, but they see it as just another way to win the game, and winning the game is all that matters. Now, I know games are by definition competitive. The old saying, "If winning isn't important, why do they keep score?" definitely applies. But they're also just games -- there has to be a balance. I, for one, would rather lose a close, well-played game than win a sloppy, argument-filled one. But that's just me.
Another aspect is beyond just winning the game itself, but feeling superior
to the other players. The rules lawyer can prove he knows the game better
than the others; and if he can convince someone to agree with his interpretation,
then he has proven his superiority (at least in his mind) over that other
person. Never mind that the other person gave in not on the merits of the
argument, but on the annoyance factor of the rules
lawyer's constant bitching -- hey, a win's a win, right?
A particularly annoying offshoot of this breed is the rules lawyer who feels he has to prove his superiority over the people that publish the game. They're the guys that send letters with page after page of questions, all based on the most convoluted reading of the rules they can manage. Every questions is phrased like a challenge: "How can you possibly mean . . . " or "This rule does such-and-such. What gives?" If you could slap a letter hard enough to make the person who wrote it feel it, there's a couple of times I would have given it a try.
Of course, game companies aid and abet rules lawyers by writing clumsy rules. Part of the problem is the nature of our industry. Nobody's designing Candyland around here; the rules are complicated, supplements come along that sometimes contradict what went before and -- especially with card games -- the players often find card and play combinations that cause rules conflicts, ever after the designers playtested the game for months. It's just the nature of the beast.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, of course. We, and the rest of our compadres in arms, write and rewrite, use dozens of playtesters, test games at conventions, play in-house over and over, and then play some more (long past the point that the word "play" even applies). That's our part in the war to stamp out rules lawyers.
What's your part? First, resist the temptation a rules lawyer yourself -- you know who you are -- stop it. And if you find yourself in a game with a rules lawyer, try to correct him or her, gently. Enlist the aid of others, but don't let the rules lawyer get the idea you're ganging up on him -- rules lawyers are often paranoid, too. With the most incorrigible of the lot, you may have to decide if it's worth the time and aggravation to continue playing with them. But that's your call, not mine.
Good luck. And remember: Just Say No to Rules Lawyering.
Scott D. Haring
Pyramid Editor
Duelmaster: Rules Lawyers
We're Reading Your Mail
To: <pyramid@io.com>
It's no wonder rules lawyers flock to Car Wars -- the rules are in dire need of clarification, revision and out-and-out rewriting, which it has not received. Instead rules are written with minimal coherence, or are contradicted somewhere in the manual, or are hopelessly vague. The fault of this, sadly, lies with the past and present editors of Car Wars; it is they who allowed this to occur. This is why I am in the process of going through the rulebook, and giving it the cleaning it so desperately needs. When it's done, I'll let you know. In the meantime, Car Wars diehards, fear not -- The Rules-Lawyer-Slayer is on the move!
Sincerely,
Chris French
Vice President, New Omaha Vehicular Association
Pyramid 26. July/August 1997
Subject: 2047-2048 AADA WDC Committee
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:16:39 +0000
From: Rob Deis <rdeis@io.com>
To: owenmp@ior.com
Michael P. Owen wrote "Do you have an archive of all of the discussions that occurred between the members of the AADA WDCC? Posting those elmays on the WWW would create a great reference document."
Unfortunately, emotions tended to run high during some of those discussions, so much of it is best left off the public record. Also, the main objective was to get all the rules-lawyering done ahead of time and behind closed doors so the main body of players didn't have to be bothered by a discussion that many would find undesirable.
However, I already have most of the important issues discussed and the conclusions reached listed on the Q&A page with rule and reason support. I could add some things describing why we set up the events the way we did to the final event report, if you like, and that would draw more material out of the archives.
Subject: Age of Renaissance question
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:22:35 +0100
From: Marco SOZZI <marco.sozzi@cern.ch>
Organization: Universita' di Pisa
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
One question on AOR (AH), a wonderful game IMHO. When a player puts square pieces in an empty province, can he/she put _and leave_ there more tokens than the market number? (in order to make it more difficult for the next player(s) to win a market competition there).
The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to dominate the province. Therefore my interpretation is that either you do that when it is your turn, and you get domination of the province (and you remove all the square tokens), or you don't, and possibly leave there any number of square tokens, just to hinder other players, but you don't dominate the province (i.e. no income).
Does this sound OK?
Thank-you
Marco
========================================
Marco S. Sozzi
CERN - European Lab for Particle Physics
Geneva - Switzerland
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: 30 Nov 1998 16:30:52 GMT
From: jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson)
Organization: Illuminati Online
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Marco SOZZI <marco.sozzi@cern.ch> wrote:
One question on AOR (AH), a wonderful game IMHO. When a player puts square pieces in an empty province, can he/she put _and leave_ there more tokens than the market number? (in order to make it more difficult for the next player(s) to win a market competition there).
No. Gotta go to round markers.
The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
dominate the province.
Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs. The "can"
there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach dominance, you dominate.
--
Hunter Johnson
/\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/
SJG Errata Guy
/()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/
Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:31:17 -0600
From: yyadadabado@DELETEwTHISinternet.com (Mike Schneid®)
Organization: First Minnesota Historical Wargames Club
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
In article <73uh7s$886$3@hiram.io.com>, jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) wrote:
>Marco SOZZI <marco.sozzi@cern.ch> wrote:
>
>> One question on AOR (AH), a wonderful game IMHO.
>
>> When a player puts square pieces in an empty province, can he/she
>> put _and leave_ there more tokens than the market number? (in order
>> to make it more difficult for the next player(s) to win a market
>> competition there).
>
>No. Gotta go to round markers.
>
>> The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
>> market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
>> dominate the province.
>
>Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
>"can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
>dominance, you dominate.
Actually, to achieve your interpretation, the word "can" would have
to be replaced with "must". Since that has not been done, I get the
impression that overloading is allowed (as it is in Civilization).
But I don't play AoR, so I'll leave it to you two to settle.
--
Replace stuff before @ with mike1.
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: 30 Nov 1998 09:46:28 -0800
From: Mark Rafn <dagon@halcyon.com>
Organization: damned little
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
>>Marco SOZZI <marco.sozzi@cern.ch> wrote:
>>> When a player puts square pieces in an empty province, can he/she
>>> put _and leave_ there more tokens than the market number? (in order
>>> to make it more difficult for the next player(s) to win a market
>>> competition there).
>jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) wrote:
>>No. Gotta go to round markers.
>>
>>> The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
>>> market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
>>> dominate the province.
>>
>>Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
>>"can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
>>dominance, you dominate.
Mike Schneid arranged electrons in a pattern like this:
> Actually, to achieve your interpretation, the word "can"
would have to
>be replaced with "must". Since that has not been done, I get the
>impression that overloading is allowed (as it is in Civilization).
Have it your way. You may overload a province and choose NOT to substitute
a round marker for all of them. However, the rules are
pretty clear (I'd quote if I had 'em in front of me) that the excess
squares are removed at the end of your phase, before anyone else goes.
The difference between AoR and Civ, in this particular, is when "remove
surplus population" happens. Civ does it all at once after everyone
goes, where AoR does it immediately after each player's move.
This makes it impossible to leave reinforcements. IMO, it removes a lot of strategic options, but it's not ambiguous.
> But I don't play AoR, so I'll leave it to you two to settle.
Right. Play it, then comment. Of course, I'm not much better, opining
in public without a rules cite.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@halcyon.com <http://www.halcyon.com/dagon/>
!G
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:48:48 -0600
From: yyadadabado@DELETEwTHISinternet.com (Mike Schneid®)
Organization: First Minnesota Historical Wargames Club
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
In article <73ullk$s68$1@halcyon.com>, Mark Rafn <dagon@halcyon.com> wrote:
>Mike Schneid arranged electrons in a pattern like this:
>> Actually, to achieve your interpretation, the word "can"
would have to
>>be replaced with "must". Since that has not been done, I get the
>>impression that overloading is allowed (as it is in Civilization).
>
>Have it your way. You may overload a province and choose NOT
to
>substitute a round marker for all of them. However, the rules
are
>pretty clear (I'd quote if I had 'em in front of me) that the excess
>squares are removed at the end of your phase, before anyone else goes.
Mark's reply has value (it cites another section of the rules which
apparently render the discussion moot, since excess markers would be
removed before battles in another player's turn), unlike:
In article <73umoh$h3q$1@hiram.io.com>, jhunterj@dillinger.io.com
(J.
Hunter Johnson) wrote:
>Only if you need to make it rules-lawyer-proof. "Can" can achieve
>'my' interpretation as well, even if it can be seized by the rules
>lawyers to mean otherwise.
It will be "seized" upon by grammarians as well, since the definitions
of "can" and "must" are not synonymous.
--
Replace stuff before @ with mike1.
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: 1 Dec 1998 17:02:33 GMT
From: jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson)
Organization: Illuminati Online
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Mike Schneid® <yyadadabado@DELETEwTHISinternet.com> wrote:
> Mark's reply has value (it cites another section of the rules which
> apparently render the discussion moot, since excess markers would
be
> removed before battles in another player's turn), unlike:
> In article <73umoh$h3q$1@hiram.io.com>, jhunterj@dillinger.io.com
(J.
> Hunter Johnson) wrote:
>> Only if you need to make it rules-lawyer-proof. "Can" can achieve
>> 'my' interpretation as well, even if it can be seized by the rules
>> lawyers to mean otherwise.
> It will be "seized" upon by grammarians as well, since the
> definitions of "can" and "must" are not synonymous.
*sigh* I didn't say they were. They do have overlap, though, which means that the rules are not *required* to replace that 'can' with 'must' in order to be correct.
Hunter
--
Hunter Johnson
/\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/
SJG Errata Guy
/()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/
Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: 30 Nov 1998 18:05:05 GMT
From: jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson)
Organization: Illuminati Online
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Mike Schneid® <yyadadabado@DELETEwTHISinternet.com> wrote:
> In article <73uh7s$886$3@hiram.io.com>, jhunterj@dillinger.io.com
(J.
> Hunter Johnson) wrote:
>> Marco SOZZI <marco.sozzi@cern.ch> wrote:
>>> The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
>>> market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
>>> dominate the province.
>> Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
>> "can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
>> dominance, you dominate.
> Actually, to achieve your interpretation, the word "can" would have
> to be replaced with "must".
Only if you need to make it rules-lawyer-proof. "Can" can achieve 'my' interpretation as well, even if it can be seized by the rules lawyers to mean otherwise.
Hunter
--
Hunter Johnson
/\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/
SJG Errata Guy
/()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/
Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: 1 Dec 1998 05:32:41 GMT
From: pmenard@cse.unl.edu (Shadow)
Organization: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
:>>> The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
:>>> market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
:>>> dominate the province.
:>> Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
:>> "can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
:>> dominance, you dominate.
:> Actually, to achieve your interpretation, the word "can" would have
:> to be replaced with "must".
:Only if you need to make it rules-lawyer-proof. "Can" can achieve
:'my' interpretation as well, even if it can be seized by the rules
:lawyers to mean otherwise.
I fail to see the ambiguity. Here is a section of the rules from page 2 of the manual:
1.2 Player Roles: Each player acts as the mastermind behind one of the
six financial powerhouses.
* Square tokens representing market penetration are placed
on mapboard
spaced called Provinces to dominate markets.
If the number of tokens
placed in a province matches the province
Market Number with no
opposing pieces present, all friendly pieces
in that province are
immediately replaced with a single round piece
which may generate
income. If opposing pieces are present,
conflict must be resolved
before a round piece can be placed.
The section of competition (9.53) lists the criteria for placing tokens in an occupied province.
There is one sentence that may cause confusion on this:
"Losing pieces are returned to their Stock. The winning pieces remain (or are replaced with a round token)"
This should be taken to mean, "If the defender wins, his pieces remain, if the attacker wins, he places a round marker and removes all square markers"
However, on page 2 section 4.3 clarifies this:
4.3 Market Numbers: The number in each province is the maximum amount of tokens that province's markets can support. Tokens with exceed that number trigger Market Competition (see 9.53). A province with a circled number (e.g., 3) can support one Domination (round) marker, or up to that number of tokens. A province whose market number is 1 cannot contain a Domination marker and will support only one token.
Thus, you can have the round marker OR square markers.
Shadow
Subject: Re: Rules Lawyering.
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:37:33 -0600
From: "Stanley, the Daredevil Crow!" <samcraig@io.com>
Organization: 668, Neighbor of the Beast!
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
>
> > The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
> > market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
> > dominate the province.
>
> Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
> "can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
> dominance, you dominate.
>
I've always used the term 'rules-lawyer' to denote players who were
trying to get an edge unfairly; as in the old min-maxing term of AD&D.
If a player in AoR doesn't try to control a province, just make it
harder for others to control, it doesn't seem like he is abusing the
system; just adding some more versatility to the game.
The reason why I bothered to write this is that 'rules-lawyer' is a
very strong insult in my gaming area.
Subject: Re: Rules Lawyering.
Date: 30 Nov 1998 18:41:30 GMT
From: jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter Johnson)
Organization: Illuminati Online
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Stanley, the Daredevil Crow! <samcraig@io.com> wrote:
> J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as
the
> > > market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
> > > dominate the province.
> >
> > Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
> > "can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
> > dominance, you dominate.
> >
>
> I've always used the term 'rules-lawyer' to denote players who were
> trying to get an edge unfairly; as in the old min-maxing term of
AD&D.
> If a player in AoR doesn't try to control a province, just make it
> harder for others to control, it doesn't seem like he is abusing
the
> system; just adding some more versatility to the game.
>
> The reason why I bothered to write this is that 'rules-lawyer' is
a very
> strong insult in my gaming area.
Ah. Good point. Apologies to the original poster. I'm less insulted by the term, and have applied it to myself on occasion, and was using it here to warn against getting caught up in the details to the detriment of the intent (not in a willful abusive sense).
Hunter
--
Hunter Johnson
/\ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/
SJG Errata Guy
/()\ http://www.sjgames.com/errata/
Knightmare Chess Guru /____\ http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/
Subject: Re: Rules Lawyering.
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 07:18:47 -0500
From: John Beaderstadt <beady@together.net>
Organization: Aunt Tilly's House of Ill Repute and Burger Bar
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
>
> Ah. Good point. Apologies to the original poster.
I'm less insulted
> by the term, and have applied it to myself on occasion, and was using
> it here to warn against getting caught up in the details to the
> detriment of the intent (not in a willful abusive sense).
I like the general rule from Nuclear War: When in doubt, the owner of
the game decides (and the precedent is followed from then on). It saves
a lot of time and animosity.
--
"I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
--Albert Einstein
Subject: Re: Rules Lawyering / the Clerks
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:53:34 -0800
From: "töff & tiwi" <gzweb@qnis.net>
Organization: critterhaven
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
John Beaderstadt wrote:
> I like the general rule from Nuclear War: When in doubt, the owner
of
> the game decides (and the precedent is followed from then on). It
saves
> a lot of time and animosity.
and you WRITE IT DOWN IN THE RULEBOOK. if it ain't in the book, it ain't a rule.
-- töff
Subject: Re: Rules Lawyering / the Clerks
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 03:34:16 GMT
From: rwpikul@uwaterloo.ca (Rick Pikul)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
In article <36648F8E.91C0EC0E@qnis.net>, gzweb@qnis.net wrote:
>John Beaderstadt wrote:
>> I like the general rule from Nuclear War: When in doubt, the owner
of
>> the game decides (and the precedent is followed from then on). It
saves
>> a lot of time and animosity.
>
>and you WRITE IT DOWN IN THE RULEBOOK. if it ain't in the book, it
ain't a
> rule.
No, if you write it down you can't change your mind the next time it comes up :}
Yes, I own the set that I almost always play with, why do you ask? :}
--
Phoenix
|Next WATSFIC event:
An official WATSFIC |Games Day: Dec 5
poster guy
|Student Life Centre
For more about WATSFIC |Multi-Purpose Room
set your browser to: |University of Waterloo
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/clubs/watsfic/
Subject: Re: Rules Lawyering.
Date: 03 Dec 1998 01:50:18 GMT
From: rtaylor340@aol.com (RTaylor340)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
In the game "Viceroys", every player had a game-related job that paid in game money. For example, the banker got a small cut of all transactions as a fee for keeping the books.
One player was the official Rules Lawyer. If two other players disagreed on a rule, the RL made a ruling -- and the loser paid his fee! (I don't recall what happened when the RL is a party in the dispute.)
In the one game of "Viceroys" I played, the threat of losing money as well an argument made everyone very reasonable. We mediated our own rules disputes, and the Rules Lawyer didn't get to decide a single "case". Which made him the only player not to make any money on the side. Boy, was he pissed.
I gotta hand it to the designer for that idea.
-- Roger
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 04:28:38 GMT
From: kenagress@earthlink.net (Ken Agress)
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
On 30 Nov 1998 16:30:52 GMT, jhunterj@dillinger.io.com (J. Hunter
Johnson) wrote:
<snip>
>> The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
>> market number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to
>> dominate the province.
>
>Don't get caught up trying to rules-lawyer the little verbs.
The
>"can" there is denoting ability, not option. When you reach
>dominance, you dominate.
>
I believe the language is there to take into account the fact that
conflict over an area will require additional tokens. I believe that the
rules state that at the end of *each* players move, all tokens are converted
into dominance markers at the end of their move in all areas where dominance
has been achieved. If not in the rules, I believe it was handled in a Q&A
in the General.
Ken Agress
Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance question
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:50:17 +0100
From: "Michael Svellov" <Intergame@get2net.dk>
Organization: get2net Internet Kunde
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Marco SOZZI skrev i meddelelsen <3662C64B.590C@cern.ch>...
>One question on AOR (AH), a wonderful game IMHO.
>When a player puts square pieces in an empty province, can he/she
put
>_and leave_ there more tokens than the market number? (in order to
make
>it more difficult for the next player(s) to win a market
competition
>there).
>The rules say that when you have _at least_ as many tokens as the
market
>number you _can_ substitute them with a round marker to dominate
the
>province. Therefore my interpretation is that either you do that
when it
>is your turn, and you get domination of the province (and you
remove all
>the square tokens), or you don't, and possibly leave there any
number of
>square tokens, just to hinder other players, but you don't dominate
the
>province (i.e. no income).
> Does this sound OK?
This very question was asked here not so long ago. We have never played
that way and the Series Replay in The General didn't focus on
this point either, but when I re-read the rules I found that you are
right.
What the rules say (page 7 last paragraph) is: "You may replace tokens with a "Domination Marker" if the province has a circled Market Number, and you have at least as many tokens in that province as its Market Number.
So what we are looking at is the little word "may" - and not "can", but maybe the word still have the same meaning as "must" . . . ?
Mik
Is it legal to disqualify duelists for being rules lawyer jerks (like the one who made all these questions necessary), for instance?
Ben Pierce
Washingtonville, NY
Autoduel Quarterly 7/1, p.38
Spring 2038
Of course. In fact, I heartily recommend it. If you don't like being that grossly unfair, there are other ways to deal with the scum:
a. Every time he brings up an argument that really gets under the referee's skin, alter the victory conditions so that taking him becomes more attractive; i.e., +1 point bonus for anything done to him, cash bonuses (I recommend starting with $500 and doubling it as needed) or even skill bonuses for the one who gets the kill.
b. Activate a hidden beacon in his vehicle. Preferably one that transmits his location and speed to everyone else's computers, giving them a +1 to hit the offender. If he points out that the above rule doesn't apply to people without computers, slap a +2 on him.
c. Continue with the duel and don't let him know that you hate him. Next time you play and he weasels his way into the game, collect up everybody's vehicles and pass them to everyone else, giving the weakest design to him, and his design to another player (if possible, the one who hates him the most).
d. Don't let him play until he wises up.
Charlie A. Oines
Autoduel Quarterly Editor
AADA: Divisions
Duelmaster: Rules Lawyers
Characters: Prestige
When I get a price discount on a new car because I have high prestige, does that count for AADA cost divisions? In other words -- suppose my prestige is 25. I can buy a $40,000 car for $20,000. Can I enter it in a Division 20 duel? ADQ 8/4
Various rules lawyers
Various Locations
Absolutely not. Furthermore, it would be reasonable for your fellow players to injure you severely just for suggesting it.
Steve Jackson
Steve Jackson Games CEO
Dressing Up Your Arena For Halloween. Matthew Feigin. Autoduel Quarterly: The Journal of the American Autodueling Association. Volume 9 Number 3. Steve Jackson Games. Autumn 2041 (1991). p.13.
Eggs: Profit-grubbing arenas (name one that isn't!) sell spectators assorted grenades modified to resemble decorated eggs for list price plus $5. The spectators then toss them from the stands onto the cars in the best Halloween tradition. Assume all eggs are hurled from the nearest point in the stands by a Handgunner + 1. On average, half will be explosive and half paint (roll randomly). Referees can design elaborate tables for who receives grenade fire based on speed, nearness to spectators, etc., but a better procedure is to use them as a punishment for rules-lawyering and underhanded tactics -- the very things the fans would frown upon anyway.
Administration: Autoduel Quarterly
Cracked Windshield: Rules Lawyers
Duelmaster: Rules Lawyers
VADR: Autodueling Fiction Anthologies
The following are observations and creative suggestions that require no reply --
1) Hire David Ladyman to be the AADA letter-answerer so the editors have a chance to edit.
2) Convince John Nowak to write a novel in the spirit of yet-another-gaming-company's {Dragonlance} series.
3) Gather together a bunch of short stories, think of a creative name (like, Tale-pipes, for instance), and publish a yearly fiction anthology in the same way you do with Uncle Albert's. Backfire, 4/4
4) Send letter bombs to rules lawyers. Backfire, 4/4
Thanks, Cordwainer. My thoughts: 1) I like David too much to ever give
him that particular job; 2) I guess that's up to John, but I wouldn't mind;
3) Interesting idea -- anyone else agree?; 4) No comment. SDH
Cracked Windshield: Aerial Bombs, Ejection Seats
Duelmaster: Rules Lawyers
Whenever we "rules lawyers" come up with a really good loophole (my favorite pasttime), like component armor on cyclists, or Armor-Piercing Fireball Specials, you accuse us of treating this game like a lawyer treats the law. However, when it comes to publishing more Oops, Son of Oops and Mr. Fixits than you had rules to start with, you put them wherever and good luck to us to find them. I {feel} like a lawyer researching a case when I build a vehicle, so why {shouldn't} I argue like one?
When will we see you make a comprehensive Second Edition rulebook that you {can't} fit an Ogre through?!
P.S. What about putting a cluster bomb in an ejection seat? Backfire, 7/1
Comprehensive rulebook: I'm working on it. Cluster bombs in ejection seats: Not while I work here, you won't. CAO
Donald O. Spragg
Esperance, NY
It's Only a Game! A Reader Speaks Out. Backfire Column Letter. Stephen E. Mason. Autoduel Quarterly Volume 7 Number 4. Winter 2039. AADA Press. pp.30-31.
Note from MPO: Because of the length of this article and because it deals with a lot of issues only relevant to ADQ, I have omitted several sections. Great. I ask people do not take comments out of context then I disregard that rule. Yes, I am setting a fine example . . . :-)
Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. I have acquired an incredible talent to overlook little things, a necessary talent when playing Car Wars. It started when all of the rules lawyers began going through the rules with a fine-toothed comb . . . when grenade launchers were changed for the seventeenth time . . . when component armor and mini-safes were loopholed till the sun went down. Naturally, the traditional volley of rules changes followed, and all was well in paradise. Until plastique. And gas engines. So, I overlooked these things. I must admit, however, that I committed the Eighth Deadly Sin. I began to compare Car Wars game statistics with present military data. However, I was still able to overlook these little things. Like the fact that every gas car known to man could rocket from 0 to 60 in four seconds (Acceleration 15, figure it out), a feat matched only by the Ferrari F40, Porsche 959, Corvette ZR-1 and Ford RS-200. "Who cares?" I said. "It's only a game."
It was then I realized that few people shared my opinion. This was especially obvious in Backfire, where I was subjected to endless debate over the morality of killing and the basis for the existence of cycle gangs. Call me a crazed, bloodthirsty, neurotic killer; but I have no more trouble offing an opponent than I do jumping a checker. And why? Because it's only a game. No one is trying to pass it off as reality because it's only a game. Most rules don't need a rationalization or moral justification. They are there to make the game fun . . . But hey! I can overlook these! Just as easily as I can overlook the need for more than 40 different tire types for cars alone. I also prefer to overlook the fact that you need a Ph.D. in physics to get behind the wheel of a hovercraft.
Now that that's out of the way, I would like to take this time to answer some upcoming Backfire questions now, before they waste space in my favorite magazine: . . .
To all of you who are about to write in about loophole xyz: You cannot xyz, because x, y, and z are all mutually exclusive.
To all of you who are about to write in again, having found a technical justification for xyz: You can xyz, but only on alternate Tuesdays in May during leap years when the President is wearing a red hat.
To all of writing in about an abstract moral issue: if you need moral justification, you take the game too seriously, have trouble differentiating reality from imagination, and will soon be visited by some nice young gentlemen dressed in white who will take you somewhere where you will be very happy . . .
. . . To all of you writing in with any question beginning with "why": Because it's only a @%$#*& game, and I make the rules . . .
. . . I hated doing that. Really, I did. But I'm beginning to loose my ability to overlook things . . .
. . . Now that I've shot down most future Backfire topics, I have a civic duty to start up a few more . . .
Second, how about compiling all of the designs, weapons, variant rules, etc. that you didn't print, put them together in one big book, and publish it?
Fourth, Have people vote on rules before they become official. It will save all of us a lot of pain . . .
Sixth, print as much new equipment as possible (I may complain about too many types of tires, but it doesn't mean I don't use them).
Eighth and finally, remember: IT'S ONLY A GAME!
Thank you for sharing that with us. Your words echo the feelings of a lot of letters that we have received recently . . .
. . . We would like to print more variant rules for the game, but we want them to be playable. I enjoyed issue 5/1 tremendously and another variant issue may be done, if we get enough submissions.
As far as voting goes, it would take an incredible amount of time and make the time between new products much too long. We are making sure that all of our products get playtested extensively . . .
David N. Searle
Autoduel Quarterly Editor
Subject: Good Sportsmanship in Car Wars
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:41:55 EDT
From: [DELETED FOR PRIVACY REASONS]
To: owenmp@serv.net
Michael:
Unfortunately, I think this will further ire Mr. Deis. I also feel it needs to be done though. Dueling Debate, while perhaps novice in form etiquette and resources, is not to make the game a wholesale slaughterhouse that ignores the laws of physics and reality. Quite the contrary, I simply wish to expand upon and revise current rules, errata, and common (or not so uncommon) misunderstandings
From reading messages from the likes of Mr. Deis and other "rules lawyers", I get the feeling that the negative connotation is what they feel myself and many others who are simply trying to further this incredible game that they enjoy. I do not feel we are trying to destroy the very fabric of the game . . . if I did, I would be just as opposed to change as Mr. Deis and others seem to be.
As I see things, there are two types of inquiries to the Car Wars forums: Those who are novices and are trying to gain an understanding of the many unclear rulings in the game, and those who are not novices, but veteran gamers who have played extensively and are trying to give voice to the problems they have encountered (along with the solutions they have come up with). The rules lawyer influence is, I agree, a very negative one. It makes novices feel smaller than dirt and annoys the bejeebers out of veterans who are willing to discuss and debate their ad hoc rulings. Instead of the expected debate, they get treated like novices themselves and are summarily snubbed.
If the game was perfect, and no game ever really is, there would be no need for the forum. This is not a criticism, simply a distress beacon activated in the eleventh hour. I would be very happy if everyone could get over their differences and get back to blowing each other to smithereens, but I understand that will most likely never happen. I could be satisfied with an understanding between the differing factions that this is a forum dedicated to furthering the game, not destroying it. And both factions need to respect one another's opinions and stances on various issues.
From my understanding, the group opposed to change (unless it comes
from SJ Games) is concerned with the spread of house rules into AADA competitions.
While this may happen, it will only happen if the person (duelmaster or
referee) in charge of running the competition allows it to be. From
what I have learned about running a good event, even amongst my circle
of "house gamers", is that I dictate how the game will be officiated. This
does not have to go beyond "The rules in effect for this engagement will
be the AADA tournament competition rules" or "you can use anything from
the CWC2 and UACFH, with the later rulings (CWC2) taking precedence over
any discrepancies". This
may be simplistic, but it works. If everyone is given enough time beforehand
to prepare and familiarize, then there will not be as many holdups in the
game in progress.
What I am trying to say is that the person running the game has the responsibility to let their players know what is expected. Yes, people who like variant rules will gripe and moan when not allowed to use them, but I have yet to see one leave the table because I was or was not using one set of rules or the other. Let them get their griping over with, and then help them with the questions they will undoubtedly have familiarizing themselves with the AADA sanctioned combat rules once again. Likewise, help that tournament gamer understand the history and reasoning behind whatever house rules may be used, along with some advice on how to utilize them properly, along with whatever pros and cons they may have (this seems like coaching I'm sure, but other duelists familiar with the house rules will have an unfair advantage otherwise if the visiting gamer is not briefed before designing their vehicles). If all else fails, remind them that after the game you will (and should be) open to (fair and impartial!) discussions about how the game went. Keep in mind that even though you may be the master of your domain (at least for this gaming session), you are not above learning something new in the process. This may seem like a lot of work, but the best games I have run or participated in are the ones where I felt I learned something along the way.
Okay, I'm off the soapbox for now . . . Where the heck did that come
from? :o)