Use common sense?

In the thread titled 'Destroyed by Recoiling?' I suggested that "realism" and "common sense" should be brought into play when interpreting ambiguous rules. I would be interested to hear people's opinions on this matter. I would be particularly interested to hear if anyone agrees with me, as I already know that most disagree [img]smile.gif[/img]

Two reasons often given for not considering realism and common sense are:

(1) Different people have different ideas of what is "realistic" or what is "common sense."

(2) An important "first step" is to understand what the rules, as written, say. We need to "start" or "begin" by understanding what the rules are or what Phil intended them to be.

My replies to these are:

(1) In my experience in playing DBA I have seen a good amount of discussion, confusion, and disagreement among players as to what the rules, as written, actually mean. The discussion over common sense interpretations of ambiguous rules has in general been much more easily and amicably resolved. So yes, sometimes people have different ideas of what is "realistic" or "common sense," but this tends to be much less than the different ideas that people have about what the rules actually mean as written.

(2) Discussions of rule interpretations in this forum are usually limited to attempts to understand the rules as written and attempts to understand Phil's intentions about whet the rules should be. Discussions focus on word definitions, points of grammar, similar wording on other parts of the DBA rules, similar rules in DBM, etc. Issues of realism and common sense are usually left out completely. Saying that an important "first step" is to understand what the rules are as written implies that there is a second step, but this second step never occurs. Once the interpretation is agreed upon it then gets played as is regardless of how absurd it may be. Further discussion involving realism or common sense gets quashed as not being in the realm of "rule interpretations." It is relegated to the topic of "rule variants" and "house rules" and these are not allowed in tournament play and are unacceptable to many players even in friendly games. So there seems to be no place for realism and common sense in our interpretations of the official rules. I suggest, instead, that realism and common sense be brought in from the very beginning when we are "interpreting" the "official" rules.

-Chris P.

Shooting from the hip:

I agree with both points, absolutely.

Everyone who has read them realizes that the rules are not "crystal-clear" on every point. Notwithstanding, some while ago Grant Dyck (of "Zen DBA" fame) and I agreed that the published rules: a) are already as clear as Phil Barker wants them to be, and b) Phil fully intends sportsmanship, mutual consent, and common sense to be part of the fabric of the game, where the written rules themselves are not explicit.

Eric

Chris,

To "realism" and "common sense" I would add "an enjoyable game".

Each of these may vary from gamer to gamer, but if rules debates are resolved by turning to them we should not go far wrong.

I am a huge fan of the 50% pub rule. Break the competeing options down, flip a coin to pick one, let that interpretation stand for the rest of the game, and sort it out in the pub after.

Regarding rules interpretations, I always try to get back to basics, and see “the big picture”. I don’t think of the game as being played by lead figures, but by real ancient warriors, and ask myself what is REALLY happening here, what are the problems facing the commander, and how will the troops react in the real situation.

While engrosed in a game of chess, players never really think about why pieces behave as they do; the pawn being able to move 2 squares as a first move because he is not tired, and that he advances to his front, striking diagonally on either side of his shield, and that a knight can jump because he is on a horse. In a game like chess, where rules disputes are somewhat less common than in DBA (ha ha!) this is not really an issue, but I think it is a bit sad when the basic intent of the rule is not taken into account in gaming rule disputes.

However, (there is ALWAYS a “However”), game mechanics are applied to simulate real life problems, and sometimes things are not as clear as they would seem. A rule can only be created based on a sound and comprehensive knowledge of the facts to be applied, and while I am at pains to try to see the “big picture”, there is frequently an even “BIGGER picture” which encompasses the intent behind the rule.

Without a comprehensive historical and military knowledge base to understand the logic and reason behind the rule, and just as importantly without knowing the rationale as applied by the rule-maker, it is very difficult to dissect the rule to discover WHY it is as it is. In the case of DBA, rule explanations from Phil do not appear to be very common, but I must concede that his knowledge is extremely impressive, and so the rule must have a sound basis even if I can’t see it.

Therefore, in the absence of an explanation of the rule, I must frequently yield to those who know. (Although an explanation would be nice!) That leaves me with the interpretation of the rule as written (cue Bob’s commentaries and the forum debates!), the communal knowlege "pool" of my group, and ultimately, HOUSE RULES!

In the end, I play DBA for fun. I don’t take the game too seriously, and greatly enjoy all phases of the game, including the painting, meeting, playing and aftermath discussions/post-mortems, and (to certain extent) reactive rules discussions. I resent it when excessively-time-consuming or ungentlemanly rules disagreements spoil my fun, even if I’m not directly involved. Fortunately among my group, this very rarely (almost never) happens, and disputes are usually settled amiably, (sometimes on the roll of a die) even if all participants do not agree. I support Ares' deductions about Phil's rules, and firmly believe that gamesmanship MAKES the game. "50% pub rule"!! Great!! Dave, you slay me!!

I believe that using common sense in interpreting ambiguous rules is consistent with how Phil wishes for us to interpret the rules. It is even preferable to asking Phil for interpretations of ambiguous rules. Phil has often expressed displeasure with receiving such questions and in one reply that was reproduced somewhere on this Forum a few years ago he asked that we use "common sense" in interpreting the rules. This is why I use the term "common sense."

The issue regarding heavy infantry not being able to close-the-door was a prominent example of this. Phil seemed very unhappy that someone did the math showing that in 15mm play heavy infantry couldn't use a single 200 pace move to close-the-door. He seemed upset that the conclusion that the rules did not allow for such a move was circulated and that we were playing this way. He complained that we should be using "common sense" in our interpretations and allow the move even though the rules as written seemed to not allow it. (He added a spoecial rule to later editions to rectify the problem.)

I should note, however, that I have never corresponded with Phil directly and I am only basing what I say on correspondence we have received second hand on this forum.

(Forgive me for doing this, but this reply also appears on the thread entitled "Dest by Recoil - the follow up?" It is probably not a good practice to cross-post too often.)

-Chris P.

Hi! I agree! toally! we have to play for fun but not so many people seem to understand, especially when for them "Fun=Win" is the main rule! I remember in my teenage years playing fantasy wargames and having to really argue about small tiny rules, and seing people with red swallen faces screaming at each other, swearing because of a game!!!! (the funny thing was that a week alter they where laughing and joking like if anything wouldn`t had ahppened!

Any way as far as i am concerned DBA Rules are quite simple so there should not be space for arguing at the rules! I mean you can play a wargame in about 20min. half an hour without having to reed 200 pages of rules!!

so.... Thumb up for 50% Pub Rules!

Giovanni