Soapbox: About the Industry

Conflict, Ethics, Winning, and Money

by Sandy Antunes
December 13, 2001

Why can't we call just get along?

Why do people think RPGnet and [favorite site of the week] are automatically competitors?

Why do people copycat ideas rather than teaming up?

Why do flame wars erupt on forums?

Why do some companies make lots of money and others don't?

Conflict. Competition. Like it or not, it's the root of gaming. Our entire industry is devoted to developing conflict resolution systems! We clearly realize agreement isn't easy. No, it requires 86 pages of rules to resolve.

It is impossible to expect people to agree when the entire focus of RPG design is to create these conflict resolution systems. Since we can't even agree on the best way to resolve conflicts (regardless of what the conflict is about), the idea that we can come to any sort of consensus on an actual matter is moot.

Put another way, we can't even agree to a single set of Rules of Order, thus we cannot expect to debate to a conclusion. Then again, with one organization I proposed we follow Robert's Rules of Order and was effectively dubbed a fascist for that suggestion. So there does seem to be a rejection of reasonableness on a variety of industry levels.

On chat, I commented that noted designer Gareth-Michael Skarka seems to annoy people because he 'changes his mind'. Yep, he's stated one thing, then later (ye gods) done something else. Imagine! He's willing to debate something-- then sometimes change his mind.

Ridiculous! Everyone knows the purpose of a debate is to Win, not to actually reach a consensus!

As said by Saranjeuhal, "Let's argue and prove that you or I are right. Then we'll still uphold the same beliefs anyway ..."

Myself, I used to infuriate people the same way. I'm afflicted with "Certainty" (2 pt disadv). I am totally certain my way is correct-- until another way that is better than offered, then I have no problem switching. In my field, that's the scientific process (keep a theory 'til disproved). But a lot of people hate that-- they want to see you suffer a crisis of faith, not be equitable and reasonable.

Admitably, it can sometimes be slightly passionless to not be flexible. To be 'reasonable'. Because reasonable is a fiction. And one reason we can't agree is that there isn't one best answer for everyone. That's something that is really important to remember.

That is our strength-- that we can choose an almost arbitrary path then insist it is the One True Way. It's a fundamental of society. It's the reason we have multiple television channels. It's why the winning soccer team can still be deemed sucky even if they win the world cup-- because, gosh darn, if it's not our team, they suck regardless of their win/lose record.

Heck, variable and inarguable points of view are the reason we date and marry people our friends might not like. Difference can be good, and debate has a limit.

So the real issue is not "should there be differences" but "are there some meta-rules we can agree on, even if we disagree on specifics?" Let's look at, oh, religion or politics to see if there are any role models for this.

Err, nope.

What about business? What about that mythical free market? Surely it has meta-rules. We gamers should be great a business! We live for rules! We're great at following the rules!

Boy, that's a disadvantage in business. See, there are two schools of business ethics. School A says "do what is right". School B says "you should break the law if the penalty for doing so is less than the profit you make through the illegal act." In essence, cheating can be good.

In games, cheating usually means you can 'win'. The only downside is whether the victory is worth doing. In a game, maybe it does cheapen things. In business, where cheating lets you get $$$, well, that's another story.

Which leads to a neat situation. Say you do follow the rules, and deplore cheating. Perhaps you're even reasonable and try to understand that there can be multiple points of view. Are you doomed?

Nonsense! We are rule-makers, we humans. It's time to apply that heuristical expertise to the real world.

Imagine this situation: you are facing an opponent in the arena, a fight to the death. You believe in honor. But that's no reason to act as if your opponent does. A prudent warrior would assume their opponent will cheat, will use every base trick in the book. No reason to stoop to that level, just defend and focus on your strengths.

So we can sit here in the game industry and make rule books. But we should always remember that there is more than the rules, there are meta-issues about conduct that also matter.

For business, the meta-rule can be "maximize profit and avoid actual jail time". Or it can be "do well, and sleep well at night". Your choice. For politics, perhaps "get re-elected"; in religion, "reap the benefits of the faith" (which alas may require converting others). For internet-y and forum thinges, "abuse of common courtesy will result in loss of privileges for everyone" (the 'pissing the pool' rule). For playing an RPG, the meta-rule is "following the rules is actually more satisfying [unless your GM is a prick]". Boy, this stuff can get subjective, eh?

Choose your favorite set of rules. Assume everyone plays differently anyway. Win. And have fun.