Pages

Friday, December 04, 2020

"Common law" versus "Civil law" in game design

This post is not about legal systems, but an (imperfect?) analogy about game design. Let's have some definitions for this purpose (source):

Civil law systems have their origin in the Roman legal tradition.  Civil systems vary widely, both in procedure and substantive law, so conducting research on a particular nation's civil law system should include looking at that nation's specific system of law, but they do have some trademark characteristics.  Nations with civil law systems have comprehensive, frequently updated legal codes.  Most importantly, case law is a secondary source in these jurisdictions. France and Germany are two examples of countries with a civil law system.

Common law systems, while they often have statutes, rely more on precedent, judicial decisions that have already been made. Common law systems are adversarial, rather than investigatory, with the judge moderating between two opposing parties.  The legal system in the United States is a common law system (with the exception of Louisiana, which has a mix of civil and common law).


The idea of civil law is basically "think of how the law should apply in abstract, pass a law and then enforce it". In game design, this would be thinking of a cool feat, comparing it to existing feats, and adding it to your game before play-testing it.


Common law would be the opposite approach: play the game until you reach an impasse. Resolve the impasse. If the problem arises again, you already have an answer, which might be enough or might be superseded.



There is also this:


Customary law systems are based on patterns of behavior (or customs) that have come to be accepted as legal requirements or rules of conduct within a particular country.  The laws of customary legal systems [...] are often dispensed by elders, passed down through generations. [...] Oftentimes, customary law practices can be found in mixed legal system jurisdictions, where they've combined with civil or common law.


In RPG-land, these are the rules we used because they were always like this. Falling damage ("d6 per 10 feet") is a good example. It is not particularly realistic or deliberate, and it's basically unchanged from OD&D to 5th edition because nobody cared to change it.

One could say "corporate" D&D is civil law (created by designers for users) while indie/OSR (and probably the ORIGINAL D&D) games are common law (created by users for users). "Grognards" would prefer customary laws (created by Gygax for the good of humanity). I jest, I jest. 

In reality, everything is a mix of all systems. Many OSR writers use old rules without question, and WotC often use feedback from actual players before publishing a new class or feat.

But the "civil law" mentality in corporate D&D might explain why some 5e homebrewers, unlike, say, OSR authors, seem so cautious about changing the fundaments of the system; they do not seem themselves as legislators, only judges.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people dedicated to create innumerable rules and classes... that their players don't need. They are deep in theory-crafting and balancing, but not really into playing D&D. Here are two pieces of advice: first, do not fix what is not broken, unless you really think you can make the game cooler. Second, nobody wants your house rules... or do they?

This mentality also shows in official modules (and also some unofficial ones). Some books seem like they were written to be consumed, while others are obviously written to be played. 

Curse of Strahd, one of my favorite 5e books, is a good example; it feels somewhat "customary" ("we must do that because it is in the original module") and somewhat "civil law" ("this will certainly look cool in the book"), but not "common law" at all ("this didn't work in practice, let1's try something else"). I get the same feeling with the "infernal machines" in Avernus (this LOOKS really cool doesn't it?).

Here is a more specific example: you come up with a rule that requires rolling a lot of dice. You make some calculations and find out that this means +0.7 damage in average, exactly right for your purposes. This is "civil law". If you are playing the game and realized adding half a dozen dice rolls per round for a 0.7 is a hassle, this is "common law".

Again, this is rough generalization. There is plenty of "civil law" mentality even in indie systems - i.e., the idea that the game designer knows the table's problems better than the GM. And, to be honest - sometimes they do. They might have spent more time thinking about this stuff, at least as far as their own games are concerned. However, they do not know what you and your friends enjoy... or hate.

My own books always START with the "common law" approach (i.e., I want to write books I already NEED), but add some "civil law" as I write, because I want the whole thing to be a coherent whole.

Anyway. Play the game long enough, and you'll find that it becomes harder and harder to play with rules that are not your own and not specifically suited for your table.

4 comments:

  1. I'm always exceptionally interested in house-rules. I might not use them, but it's interesting to see what and how other people play, rather than going off of the rules that end up being published. And occasionally, there's a neat little mechanic or minigame that would be just perfect slotted in somewhere

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel the same - especially when dealing with these "common law" house rules people make upo during actual play.

      Delete
  2. I find this a particularly weak entry, boiling down to "common law good, civil law bad"? Trying to make civil law a parallel for lack of playtesting makes this broken metaphor particularly egregious.
    Common law systems have their own set of problems - judges have to weigh decisions based on fear setting a precedent, as even a bad decision still becomes part of legal history to invoke. Cases may be decided by which lawyer has the better historic knowledge, and can dig up a case that parallels the current one where the decision went to their side.
    Trying to put this inan RPG scenario, it'd work like this: the group forgets a rule, and didn't want to look it up, so they just made up a quick houserule to push the story along. However when the same challenge comes up again, a player might demand that it is resolved the same way the party did it the first time; since you have already "solved" the rule and set a precedent there's no reason to further mess with it and look up what the book actually says. Player habit BECOMES the rule.
    A system of law where the current law is always clearly pinned down for you.
    I think the analogy does not work AT ALL and so I won't even TRY to make the parallel fit but if I was forced to I'd say RPG design inherently and unavoidably has elements of both of your examples - play is a mix of rules as written and houserules, and rules MUST be clear, prescriptive and concise despite, obviously, leaving it to the people who play it to interpret them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I didn't mean or imply "common law good, civil law bad", nor did I mean to criticize existing legal systems, but if you're saying the analogy might be broken, I won't dispute that (you might be more familiar than I am, and I pretty much admit the analogy might be imperfect in the first line of the post).
      I was just commenting on how different RPG rules are created, and why they "feel" different.
      I do agree that "RPG design inherently and unavoidably has elements of both of your examples", so I think we are on a similar page regarding conclusions.

      Delete